Mboh v. Holder , 377 F. App'x 330 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1925
BELTHA MBONG MBOH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 2, 2010 Decided: May 10, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irena I. Karpinski, LAW OFFICES OF IRENA I. KARPINSKI,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B.
Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Beltha Mbong Mboh petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal
from the immigration judge’s order denying her motion for a
continuance and reaffirming the denial of her applications for
asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2009), the immigration judge
may grant a continuance for good cause shown. See Jean v.
Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). The immigration
judge’s refusal to grant a continuance is thus subject to review
for abuse of discretion. Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th
Cir. 1998). The denial of a continuance will be upheld “‘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 v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439,
441 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231).
We find no abuse of discretion. 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2