1

09-5146-ag Rajah v. Holder



### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY O RDE R

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
O N O RA FTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE P ROCEDURE 3 2 .1 AN D T H I S C OURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 4 day of January, two thousand eleven. th 

### 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 

### 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 

### 10 Circuit Judges. 

### 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X MOHAMED RAJAH, 

### 13 14 15 Petitioner, 

### 16 17 -v.- 09-5146-ag 

### 18 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General of 

### 20 the United States, 

### 21 Respondent

. 

### 22 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Kai W. De Graaf 

### 26 Law Offices of Kai W. De Graaf 

### 27 64 Fulton St. 

### 28 New York, NY 100382 

### 1 FOR RESPONDENT: R. Alexander Goring 

### 2 3 (Tony West and Michelle G. Latour, on 

### 4 brief ) 

### 5 Office of Immigration Litigation 

### 6 Civil Division 

### 7 U.S. Department of Justice 

### 8 P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station 

### 9 Washington, DC 20044 

### 10 11 12 Petition for review of a final order of the Board of 

### 13 Immigration Appeals denying Petitioner’s motion for a 

### 14 continuance of his removal proceedings and affirming an 

### 15 Immigration Judge’s order of removal. 

### 16 17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

### 18 AND DECREED that the petition is DISMISSED

. 

### 19 20 The Petitioner, Mohamed Rajah, petitions this Court to 

### 21 review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision 

### 22 denying his motion for a continuance in his removal 

### 23 proceedings due to a pending labor certification application 

### 24 (which, if granted, would entitle him to apply for a change 

### 25 of status to legal permanent resident). We assume the 

### 26 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 

### 27 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 

### 28 29 This Court has jurisdiction to review decisions by the 

### 30 BIA to grant or deny continuances. Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 

### 31 F.3d 193, 198-99 (2d. Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We review 

### 32 the BIA’s decision to deny a continuance for abuse of 

### 33 discretion. Id. at 199. 

### 34 35 The basis of Rajah’s motion for a continuance has been 

### 36 his pending labor certification application. Between our 

### 37 prior decision in this case (remanding to the BIA for 

### 38 reconsideration of his motion), Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 

### 39 449 (2d Cir. 2008), and the BIA’s reconsideration of Rajah’s 

### 40 motion, Rajah’s labor certification application was 

### 41 approved. However, his resulting labor certification then 

### 42 expired. As a result, Rajah no longer has a labor 

### 43 certification application pending before the Department of 

### 44 Labor. Therefore, his petition is moot, and we must dismiss 

### 45 it. See Kamagate v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 

### 46 2004) (“A case becomes moot, if, at any stage of the3 

### 1 proceeding, it fails to satisfy the case-or-controversy 

### 2 requirement of Article III....”). 

### 3 4 We hereby DISMISS Rajah’s petition for review of the 

### 5 BIA’s denial of his motion for a continuance and its 

### 6 affirmance of an order of removal. 

### 7 8 9 FOR THE COURT: 

### 10 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 11 12