UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
January 4, 2011
MOHAMED RAJAH, PETITIONER,
ERIC H. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENT.
Rajah v. Holder
BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE ROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of January, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.
Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Petitioner's motion for a continuance of his removal proceedings and affirming an Immigration Judge's order of removal.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition is DISMISSED.
The Petitioner, Mohamed Rajah, petitions this Court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion for a continuance in his removal proceedings due to a pending labor certification application (which, if granted, would entitle him to apply for a change of status to legal permanent resident). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
This Court has jurisdiction to review decisions by the BIA to grant or deny continuances. Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 198-99 (2d. Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We review the BIA's decision to deny a continuance for abuse of discretion. Id. at 199.
The basis of Rajah's motion for a continuance has been his pending labor certification application. Between our prior decision in this case (remanding to the BIA for reconsideration of his motion), Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 449 (2d Cir. 2008), and the BIA's reconsideration of Rajah's motion, Rajah's labor certification application was approved. However, his resulting labor certification then expired. As a result, Rajah no longer has a labor certification application pending before the Department of Labor. Therefore, his petition is moot, and we must dismiss it. See Kamagate v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 2004) ("A case becomes moot, if, at any stage of the proceeding, it fails to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III....").
We hereby DISMISS Rajah's petition for review of the BIA's denial of his motion for a continuance and its affirmance of an order of removal.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.