Heredia v. Holder

12-894
Heredia v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A074 194 050
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 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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 27th day of March, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MIGUEL ANGEL HEREDIA, AKA MIGUEL
14 HEREDIA, AKA ANGEL HEREDIA, AKA
15 MIGUEL HEREIDA, AKA MIGUEL A. HEREIDA,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 12-894
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: George A. Terezakis, Mineola, New
26 York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
29 Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn,
1 Assistant Director; Lynda A. Do,
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, U.S. Department of
4 Justice, Washington D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Miguel Angel Heredia, a native and citizen
11 of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of the February 6,
12 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the October 21, 2011,
13 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel A. Ferris, denying
14 Heredia’s request for a continuance and ordering him
15 removed. In re Miguel Angel Heredia, No. A074 194 050
16 (B.I.A. Feb. 6, 2012), aff’g No. A074 194 050 (Immig. Ct.
17 N.Y. City Oct. 21, 2011). We assume the parties’
18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
19 in this case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
21 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
22 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
23 2008) (quotation marks omitted). Heredia challenges only
24 the agency’s denial of a continuance and we review that
25 denial “under a highly deferential standard of abuse of
2
1 discretion.” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir.
2 2006). An IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good
3 cause shown,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, and we will find an abuse
4 of discretion in denying a continuance only if the judge’s
5 decision “rests on an error of law (such as application of
6 the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual
7 finding or [if the] decision – though not necessarily the
8 product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual
9 finding – cannot be located within the range of permissible
10 decisions,” Morgan, 445 F.3d at 551-52 (internal quotation
11 marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
12 The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying
13 Heredia’s request for a continuance. The IJ recognized
14 that, under certain circumstances, a continuance might be
15 warranted to pursue post-conviction relief, but she
16 reasonably explained that Heredia had not established good
17 cause for such a continuance because he had not filed a
18 motion to vacate his conviction or submitted any evidence as
19 to the merit of a challenge to his conviction. See Elbahja
20 v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding
21 that an IJ does not abuse his or her discretion by denying a
22 continuance sought to pursue relief that is “speculative at
3
1 best”). Furthermore, as the BIA noted, Heredia’s conviction
2 remained final for purposes of his removability. See
3 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A); see also Waugh v. Holder, 642
4 F.3d 1279, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011).
5 Moreover, although we have found it appropriate in
6 certain circumstances to remand for the BIA to define the
7 boundaries of an IJ’s discretion to grant a continuance,
8 remand is not warranted here. See Rajah v. Mukasey, 544
9 F.3d 449, 454-55 (2d Cir. 2008). Indeed, even if we were to
10 remand for the BIA to establish a standard for granting
11 continuances to pursue post-conviction relief under Padilla
12 v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), Heredia could not
13 demonstrate that the IJ’s decision constituted an abuse of
14 discretion under any standard so established because he
15 failed to submit evidence of a pending motion to vacate
16 based on Padilla. See Elbahja, 505 F.3d at 129. We note
17 that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chaidez v.
18 United States, holding that Padilla does not apply
19 retroactively to convictions that were already final on
20 direct review when Padilla was issued in 2010, may implicate
21 whether the New York courts would apply Padilla in any post-
22 conviction proceeding that Heredia might pursue. See
4
1 Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013); see
2 also Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321 (1987)
3 (discussing principles of retroactivity); Danforth v.
4 Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 266, 282, 291 (2008). Similarly,
5 because Heredia cannot establish that he was prejudiced by
6 the IJ’s denial of his request for a continuance, his due
7 process claims are without merit. See Garcia-Villeda v.
8 Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that
9 an applicant must demonstrate that he was prejudiced to
10 establish a due process violation).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED.
13
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
16
5