Case Name: Mohammad PAZIR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-15
Citations: 221 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 06-1780
Parties: Mohammad PAZIR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Mohammad PAZIR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1780.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2007.
Decided: March 15, 2007.
Pablo Santiago, Jr., Law Offices of Pablo Santiago, Jr., Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, William C. Minick, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Pazir, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) finding that he is ineligible for relief from removal. Pazir contends that the IJ erred in finding that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at the February 5, 2004 hearing. We have reviewed the record and conclude that this contention is without merit. See Delgado-Corea v. INS, 804 F.2d 261, 263 (4th Cir.1986). Next, we reject Pazir's claims that the IJ and government counsel behaved inappropriately and unfairly, or violated his right to due process, at the February 5, 2004 hearing. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir.2002). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the IJ's denial of a continuance from the March 1, 2004 hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2006).
We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.