Mohammed Syedul Islam v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMED SYEDUL ISLAM,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73833
Agency No. A202-150-604
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Syedul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73833
continuance and review de novo questions of law. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526
F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Islam’s fourth motion for
a continuance for failure to show good cause where he had not shown that he was
diligent in obtaining counsel, provided no documentary evidence that counsel was
obtained, and failed to submit any applications for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29
(an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown”); cf. Garcia v.
Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Although it would have been
reasonable for the IJ to grant [petitioner] an additional continuance, it was not
unreasonable for him not to do so.”).
The agency applied the correct legal standard and provided sufficient
reasoning in denying the continuance, where it invoked the applicable “good
cause” standard, cited pertinent legal authorities, and explained the reasons for its
decision. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (the
agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies
relevant case law in rendering its decision); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --