Alam v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60331
Summary Calendar
SYED MUEED ALAM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79-005-389
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Syed Mueed Alam appeals the affirmance by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of
a motion for continuance of the hearing on Alam’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. He contends that his procedural due process
rights to a full and fair hearing were violated because Attorney
Sharif was unfamiliar with the facts of the case and, therefore,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
unable to develop Alam’s testimony and because Alam himself was ill
on the date of the hearing.
This court reviews the BIA’s affirmance of an IJ’s denial of
a continuance for abuse of discretion. Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d
549, 555-56 (5th Cir. 1997). An IJ may grant a continuance upon a
showing of good cause. Id.Alam’s motion for a continuance based on either Attorney
Zakaria’s illness or Alam’s “condition” lacked good cause. Alam
had already been granted three continuances. See Bright v. INS,
837 F.2d 1330, 1332 (5th Cir. 1988). Moreover, Alam’s attorney of
record, Ramji, was present at the hearing. See Patel v. INS,
803 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir. 1986). Thus, the IJ did not err
when it denied the continuance, and Alam’s claim, framed as a due
process violation, fails. See Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 680-
81 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Alam’s petition for review is DENIED.
2