Opinion ID: 3053246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The IJ Abused Her Discretion in Denying the

Text: Continuance The IJ abused her discretion in denying Karapetyan’s request for a continuance so that he could submit fingerprints. [21] Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” In the context of immigration proceedings, the decision to grant or deny continuances is in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Nakamoto, 363 F.3d at 883 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Baires, 856 F.2d at 91. But the IJ’s discretion is limited. Baires, 856 F.2d at 91 (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964)). We will reverse an IJ’s decision should we conclude that her ruling results from “an abuse of discretion.” Id. When evaluating an IJ’s denial of a motion for continuance we consider a number of factors — including, for example, (1) the importance of the evidence; (2) the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct; (3) the inconvenience to the court; and (4) the number of continuances previously granted in the case. See Baires, 856 F.2d at 92-93; cf. United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358-59 (9th Cir. 1985) (listing factors appellate court considers when reviewing district court’s denial of request for continuance), amended, 764 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1985). [22] We recently evaluated these factors in a similar case, Cui v. Mukasey, No. 05-72185, slip op. 11043 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2008), in which we held that the IJ abused his discretion in denying the immigrant’s request for a short continuance to submit fingerprints. Although a decision whether a denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion must be 12894 KARAPETYAN v. MUKASEY resolved on a case by case basis, Baires, 856 F.2d at 91, Cui established that “it is clearly an abuse of discretion for an IJ to deny a request from an otherwise diligent applicant for a short continuance to submit fingerprints, particularly where the applicant was faced with an unclear fingerprint requirement and where the applicant was disserved by an IJ’s inadequate guidance on the requirement.” Cui, slip op. at 11056.
[23] We first consider the evidence that was excluded as a result of the IJ’s denial of Karapetyan’s motion for a continuance. The denial of the continuance meant that Karapetyan was unable to submit fingerprints for the required security check. Without a security check, Karapetyan could not be granted relief under the law. Thus, when the IJ denied his request for a continuance to submit fingerprints, the IJ effectively pretermitted any hope Karapetyan had of obtaining relief. The vital importance of the excluded fingerprint evidence counsels in favor of granting a continuance. See Cui, slip op. at 11051.
Another factor we consider is whether the need for a continuance arose because the petitioner behaved unreasonably. We find that Karapetyan’s conduct was not unreasonable, given the circumstances. First, Karapetyan showed that exceptional circumstances prevented him from complying with the fingerprint requirement. See Baires, 856 F.2d at 92-93; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.10 (requiring the applicant to show “good cause” for a continuance). When Karapetyan was asked by the IJ why he did not submit fingerprints, he explained that he suffered a debilitating injury from a car accident on April 4, 2004 — about two months prior to the merits hearing, which was held on June 10, 2004. Karapetyan explained that he had injured KARAPETYAN v. MUKASEY 12895 his back and neck as a result of the car accident. He had regular doctor appointments twice per week and experienced difficulty sitting upright for the first two months. As of June 10, 2004, the date of the merits hearing, Karapetyan was still taking antibiotics and painkillers for his injuries. Second, as we have previously recognized, the ability of otherwise diligent applicants, like Karapetyan, to comply with the fingerprint requirement was frustrated by the legal uncertainties surrounding the fingerprint laws. See Cui, slip op. at 11051. The IJ denied Karapetyan’s motion for a continuance in June 2004, when the laws addressing fingerprinting were still unclear.14 Third, Karapetyan did not receive adequate notice regarding the fingerprint requirement. On May 8, 2003, the government informed the IJ that Karapetyan had not been fingerprinted. The IJ told Karapetyan’s attorney, Rita Mahdessian, “before we conclude this case, you need to have your client fingerprinted.” (emphasis added). Attorney Mahdessian replied, “I will.” The IJ never said that the fingerprints had to be submitted before the beginning of the merits hearing. The vague statement made by the IJ certainly would not meet the notice standards under existing law. As a result of the confusion over the fingerprint requirement, the EOIR pro14 In January 2005, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) acknowledged that the consequences of failing to complete fingerprint security checks in advance of the merits hearing were unclear under existing regulations. See 70 Fed. Reg. 4743, 4744 (Jan. 31, 2005). The EOIR proposed changes to the existing regulations while acknowledging that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 “leaves numerous questions unanswered in the complicated area of criminal history checks and national security investigations.” Id. The EOIR admitted, “[t]he current regulations are also unclear as to the scope of an immigration judge’s authority to act to grant relief in situations where a background investigation is ongoing.” Id. In practice, IJs did not always require fingerprint checks be completed in advance of the merits hearing. The state of the law is described in greater detail in our recent decision, Cui, slip op. at 11051-52. 12896 KARAPETYAN v. MUKASEY posed a new rule, effective April 1, 2005, that required IJs to ensure that applicants understand the fingerprint requirements and the consequences of noncompliance by specifying for the record (1) when the applicant received the fingerprint notice and instructions from DHS, and (2) the consequences for failing to submit the required fingerprints. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(d). Neither was done in this case.15 [24] Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Karapetyan’s failure to submit fingerprints prior to his merits hearing was reasonable.
We also consider whether the requested continuance would inconvenience the immigration court. Here, it is quite clear that neither the IJ nor the government would have been inconvenienced by a short continuance. The IJ had already heard the merits of Karapetyan’s claims. If she had found Karapetyan worthy of relief, she could have simply held the decision in abeyance pending submission of Karapetyan’s fingerprints 15 Moreover, it is questionable whether Karapetyan received adequate guidance from his trial counsel on this issue of unsettled law. During the proceedings before the IJ, Karapetyan was represented by Rita Mahdessian. Mahdessian has been disciplined by the State Bar of California and was issued an actual suspension in September 1996 and, again, in November 2005. See State Bar of California, Attorney Search, Rita Mahdessian, http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=141901. In September 1996, Mahdessian was found culpable of an act of moral turpitude, filing fraudulent amnesty applications, and possession of a counterfeit employment authorization card. Id. In November 2005, Mahdessian stipulated to six counts of misconduct in two cases. She admitted that she aided in the unauthorized practice of law by abdicating control of her office to her staff, failed to perform legal services competently, failed to keep her client informed of developments in his case, and “employed . . . means inconsistent with the truth” by telling the court she had just been hired. Stipulation Regarding Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition and Order Approving, No. 02-O-14394, at 10 (effective Nov. 12, 2005), available at http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/02-O-14394.pdf. KARAPETYAN v. MUKASEY 12897 and then scheduled a brief hearing to hear the results of the security check. Thus, this factor also supports granting Karapetyan’s request for a continuance.
When evaluating the denial of a continuance, we also consider the length and number of continuances that have previously been granted in the case. Here, the proceedings had been ongoing for about two years. On March 19, 2002, Karapetyan requested a ninety-day continuance to supplement his asylum application. On June 13, 2002, Karapetyan requested another continuance to submit additional documents. On February 13, 2003, Karapetyan requested a continuance to submit additional documentation explaining that country conditions had recently changed. On May 8, 2003, the merits hearing was continued, by mutual agreement, to September 2, 2003. The record does not indicate why the merits hearing did not take place on September 2, 2003 as scheduled. On March 24, 2004, Karapetyan’s counsel withdrew. On April 16, 2004, Karapetyan did not appear for the merits hearing because he had suffered debilitating injuries from a car accident two weeks earlier, and the matter was reset for June 10, 2004. The merits hearing was eventually held on June 10, 2004, and the IJ denied Karapetyan’s motion for a short continuance to submit fingerprints after the hearing concluded. Although Karapetyan’s case had been continued previously, the interest in administrative efficiency cannot justify the pretermission of Karapetyan’s claims where the other factors we have addressed — the importance of the evidence excluded, the reasonableness of the petitioner’s conduct, and the inconvenience to the immigration court — all militate strongly in Karapetyan’s favor. Accordingly, we conclude that the IJ abused her discretion when she denied Karapetyan’s motion for a continuance. 12898 KARAPETYAN v. MUKASEY B. The IJ’s Denial of the Continuance was Improper to the Extent the Decision was Based on an Erroneous Assessment of the Underlying Claim The IJ indicated that the denial of the continuance was based on her assessment of Karapetyan’s eligibility for relief. The IJ suggested that she might reconsider the denial of the continuance based on her assessment of the underlying claim. She stated, “All right, we’ll [take] the testimony today and if for any reason, it looks like a continuance might be required, we’ll consider that at the end of the testimony.” In her oral decision, following the merits hearing, the IJ revisited the issue and denied the motion for a continuance because “after hearing [Karapetyan’s] claim,” the IJ determined that he “does not appear eligible for asylum in any event.” [25] In light of the legal errors committed by the IJ during her evaluation of Karapetyan’s claim for asylum, we find the IJ’s denial of a continuance is improper to the extent that the decision was based on the IJ’s flawed analysis of Karapetyan’s claims for relief.