UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1050

RICHARD EKOW TAKYI,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: October 7, 2010 Decided: October 18, 2010

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Alexandru I. Craciunescu, Steffanie J. Lewis, INTERNATIONAL 

BUSINESS LAW FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony 

West, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, 

Stefanie Notarino Hennes, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Ekow Takyi, a native and citizen of Ghana, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s order denying his request for a third continuance of his 

removal proceedings and granting voluntary departure with an 

alternate order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we

deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part.

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2010), the immigration 

judge may grant a continuance for good cause shown. The 

immigration judge’s refusal to grant a continuance is thus 

subject to review for abuse of discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales, 

493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007). When deciding a motion to 

continue for the purpose of allowing for a visa petition to be 

adjudicated by United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, the immigration judge’s discretion should be favorably 

exercised if the alien establishes a prima facie approvable visa 

petition. See In re Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 790 (B.I.A. 

2009). However, the immigration judge is not obligated “to 

grant a continuance in every case where there is a pending visa 

petition.” Id. In determining whether to grant a continuance, 

the immigration judge should consider various factors including, 

among others, whether other visa petitions have been previously 
3

denied, the reasons for the continuance, and any other relevant 

procedural factors. Id. at 790-94.

We conclude the immigration judge did not abuse his 

discretion in denying Takyi’s request for a third continuance of 

his removal proceedings. See id. at 794 (“[A] history of 

continuances being granted by the Immigration Judge for the 

adjudication of a pending I-130, coupled with other relevant 

factors, may support a decision to move forward with the 

case.”). Accordingly, we deny in part the petition for review. 

To the extent that Takyi raises issues that were not presented 

in his administrative appeal to the Board, we lack jurisdiction 

to consider those unexhausted claims and dismiss in part the 

petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. 

Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 

130 S. Ct. 736 (2009). Finally, in light of the Board’s order 

sua sponte reopening proceedings and remanding this case to the 

immigration court, which was issued after the instant petition 

for review was filed, we deny as moot Takyi’s request for a 

remand to the Board. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART

AND DISMISSED IN PART