Case Name: Manual BAIRES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 620 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 15-1224
Parties: Manual BAIRES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
Manual BAIRES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-1224.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 19, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2015.
Marc Seguinot, Seguinot & Associates, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Lisa M. Damiano, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURÍAM:
Manuel Baires, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision, which denied Baires' motion for a continuance, found him ineligible for adjustment of status and a § 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility, and ordered him removed to El Salvador.
On appeal, Baires challenges the denial of his motion for a continuance. An immigration judge "may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2015). We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998). We "must uphold the [immigration judgej's denial of a continuance 'unless it was made without a rational explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.'" Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441 (quoting Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231). Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the immigration judge's denial of a continuance.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are .adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.
Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2012).