Gaye v. Holder
Opinion of the Court
Amadou Abdoulaye Gaye and Awa Ba, husband and wife and natives and citizens
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to continue where the IJ had previously granted a continuance, and petitioners’ eligibility for a section 212(e) waiver was speculative. See id. at 1247 (denial of a motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion where proceedings had previously been continued and relief was not immediately available to petitioner). It follows that petitioners’ due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
We grant the parties’ request that this case should be remanded for the BIA to address petitioners’ eligibility for voluntary departure.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. Each party shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Amadou Abdoulaye GAYE Awa Ba v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
- Status
- Published