19-450 Akassy v. Barr BIA Sagerman, IJ A088 440 540 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 19th day of December, two thousand 5 nineteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 ROBERT D. SACK, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 HUGUES DENVER AKASSY, AKA HUGUES 15 AKASSY, AKA HUGUESDENVER AKASSY, 16 AKA HUGUES DENVER AHUA AKASSY, 17 AKA HUGUES DENVERS AHUA, AKA 18 HUGUES DENVER AKASSY, AKA 19 HUGUES-DENVER AKASSY, 20 Petitioner, 21 19-450 22 v. NAC 23 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 24 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 25 Respondent. 26 _____________________________________ 27 28 FOR PETITIONER: Hugues Denver Akassy, pro se, 29 Alden, NY. 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 3 Attorney General; Nancy E. 4 Friedman, Senior Litigation 5 Counsel; Brooke Marie Maurer, 6 Trial Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, United 8 States Department of Justice, 9 Washington, DC. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

14 is DENIED.

15 Petitioner Hugues Denver Akassy, a native and citizen of

16 the Ivory Coast, seeks review of a January 24, 2019, decision

17 of the BIA affirming an August 28, 2018, decision of an

18 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Akassy a continuance and

19 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re

20 Hugues Denver Akassy, No. A088 440 540 (B.I.A. Jan. 24, 2019),

21 aff’g No. A088 440 540 (Immig. Ct. Fishkill Aug. 28, 2018).

22 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

23 and procedural history.

24 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions

25 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of

26 Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). Our

27 jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and

2 1 questions of law because Akassy is removable by reason of

2 having been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C.

3 § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); see also Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782

(2d Cir. 2015). We review such claims de novo.

5 Pierre v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007).

6 The IJ’s denial of a request for a continuance does not

7 ordinarily implicate a constitutional claim or question of

8 law over which the Court retains jurisdiction because “IJs

9 are accorded wide latitude in calendar management,” and we

10 review such decisions “under a highly deferential standard of

11 abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Gonzales,

, 551

12 (2d Cir. 2006). The IJ did not err in denying continuances

13 pending resolution of Akassy’s state habeas petition because

14 the convictions underlying his removal order were final for

15 immigration purposes despite his pending petition. See

16 Montilla v. INS,

(2d Cir. 1991); Matter of

17 J.M. Acosta,

(BIA 2018); In re Ponce

18 De Leon-Ruiz,

(BIA 1996).

19 We do not consider Akassy’s CAT claim because he does

20 not raise it in his brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,

21

, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).

22

3 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

3 stays VACATED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 6 Clerk of Court

4