09-1849-ag

Mir v. Holder

BIA

Burr, IJ

A 095 963 557

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 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

11 095 963 557 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 12, 2008). We assume

12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

13 procedural history of the case.

14 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the

15 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

17 does not abuse its discretion in denying a petitioner’s

18 motion for a continuance while his I-130 petition is pending

19 on appeal before the BIA when there is a “reliable basis to
 Nor 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 Stokes interview. See Morgan v. Gonzales, 445

9 F.3d 549, 550 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006). Although Mir provided

10 explanations for these discrepancies in his motion, the BIA

11 found that they were insufficient to reconcile the “glaring

12 inconsistencies” identified during the interview.

13 The agency has broad discretion to grant or deny

14 continuances. See Morgan 445 F.3d at 551. We cannot say

15 that the BIA abused that discretion in this case. See

16 Pedreros, 503 F.3d at 166. For the same reasons, the BIA

17 did not violate Mir’s due process rights. See id. 

2
identify 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: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

11

12