1

09-5146-ag

Rajah v. Holder

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 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

13 MOHAMED RAJAH, 

14

15 Petitioner,

16

17 -v.- 09-5146-ag

18

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General of

20 the United States,

21

22 Respondent.

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 10038
2

1

2 FOR RESPONDENT: R. Alexander Goring

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 the
3

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