Nutjaya Wannarat v. Jefferson Sessions III , 705 F. App'x 180 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1448
NUTJAYA WANNARAT,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: December 4, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janeen Hicks Pierre, PIERRE LAW, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner.
Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant
Director, Scott M. Marconda, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nutjaya Wannarat, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying her motion for a continuance.
An Immigration Judge “may grant a continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29 (2017). We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of
discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146
F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). We will uphold the denial of a continuance “unless it was
made without a rational explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or
it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination against a particular race
or group.” Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of
the record and Wannarat’s claims, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of her
motion for a continuance. See In re Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 790-92 (B.I.A. 2009).
Wannarat also contends that her due process rights were violated because the
denial of a continuance deprived her of the opportunity to challenge a marriage fraud
finding made in connection with a prior visa petition that was withdrawn and thus could
not be appealed. We review due process claims de novo. See Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d
685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Wannarat
cannot succeed on her due process claim because she fails to demonstrate resulting
prejudice. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). Further, as noted by
the Board, Wannarat’s current husband had the ability to appeal the denial of the visa
petition impacted by the prior marriage fraud determination.
2
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3