09-1849-ag

Mir v. Holder BIA Bur r, IJ A 095 963 557 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY O RDER 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 26 day of March, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

______________________________________ 12 13 ZULFIQAR MURTAZA MIR, 14 Petitioner , 15 09-1849-ag 16 v. NAC 17 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent . 21

______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City, 24 New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 27 General, Civil Division; Francis W. 28 Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Kate D. Balaban, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 Civil Division, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 D.C.The BIA’s April 2009 order also affirmed IJ Burr’s 1 December 2004 order denying Mir’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Mir does not challenge that aspect of the BIA’s decision. 2 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner, Zulfiqar Murtaza Mir, a native and citizen 6 of Pakistan, seeks review of an April 20, 2009, order of the 7 BIA affirming Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sarah M. Burr’s March 8 12, 2008, decision denying his motion for a continuance and 9 ordering him removed to Pakistan. In re Zulfiqar Murtaza 1 10 Mir, No. A 095 963 557 (B.I.A. Apr. 20, 2009); aff’g No. A 1 1 095 963 557 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 12, 2008). We assume 1 2 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 1 3 procedural history of the case. 1 4 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the 1 5 IJ’s denial of Mir’s motion for a continuance. See Sanusi 16 v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 199 (2d Cir. 2006). An agency 1 7 does not abuse its discretion in denying a petitioner’s 1 8 motion for a continuance while his I-130 petition is pending 1 9 on appeal before the BIA when there is a “reliable basis toNor does Matter of Hashmi , 25 I. & N. Dec. 785 2 (B.I.A. 2009) require remand. There, the BIA emphasized that, while many factors are relevant to the IJ’s continuance decision, “the focus of the inquiry is the apparent ultimate likelihood of success on the adjustment application.” Id . At 790. Here, before Hashmi was decided, the IJ and the BIA effectively concluded that, in light of the district director’s decision, Mir’s application was unlikely to succeed. Accordingly, we 3 1 conclude” that the petition will “ultimately be denied.” 2 Pedreros v. Keisler , 503 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir. 2007). 3 Here, the BIA found that Mir presented no evidence that the 4 Department of Homeland Security incorrectly denied his I-130 5 petition aside from “mere argument[s]” disagreeing with that 6 decision. The BIA noted that the denial was based on twelve 7 inconsistencies between Mir’s testimony and that of his wife 8 during their Stokesinterview. See Morgan v. Gonzales , 445 9 F.3d 549, 550 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006). Although Mir provided 1 0 explanations for these discrepancies in his motion, the BIA 1 1 found that they were insufficient to reconcile the “glaring 1 2 inconsistencies” identified during the interview. 1 3 The agency has broad discretion to grant or deny 1 4 continuances. See Morgan 445 F.3d at 551. We cannot say 1 5 that the BIA abused that discretion in this case. See 16 Pedreros , 503 F.3d at 166. For the same reasons, the BIA 1 7 did not violate Mir’s due process rights. See id. 2identify no abuse of discretion. 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 3 removal that the Court previously granted is VACATED, and 4 any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is 5 DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 6 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 7 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 8 34.1(b). 9 FOR THE COURT: 1 0 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 11 12