Francisa Dzifa Dzikumu-Mensah v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1042
FRANCISA DZIFA DZIKUMU-MENSAH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: June 22, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Walter Bocchini,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Francisa Dzifa Dzikumu-Mensah, a native and citizen of
Ghana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying her request for a continuance
and ordering her removed. Dzikumu-Mensah challenges the denial
of her request for a continuance. We deny the petition for
review.
An immigration judge “may grant a continuance for good
cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2011). This court reviews
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). The
court “must uphold the [immigration judge’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).
If the alien is asserting that a continuance is needed
in order to prepare and obtain additional evidence, as the alien
was in this case, the alien must make a reasonable showing that
the lack of preparation occurred despite a diligent good faith
effort to be ready to proceed and that any additional evidence

-- 2 of 4 --

3
the alien seeks to present is probative, noncumulative and
significantly favorable to the alien. Matter of Sibrun, 18 I. &
N. Dec. 354, 356-57 (BIA 1983). On appeal to the Board, the
alien must show that the denial of the motion for a continuance
caused “actual prejudice and harm and materially affected the
outcome of his case.” Id. Unsupported allegations are
insufficient. Id. at 357. The Board will not overturn the
immigration judge’s denial of a motion for a continuance unless
the alien was deprived of a full and fair hearing. Matter of
Perez-Andrade, 19 I. & N. Dec. 433, 434 (BIA 1987).
We conclude there was no abuse of discretion.
Dzikumu-Mensah failed to suggest any additional evidence she
could present that would support her proposed asylum
application. See Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 511-12 (4th
Cir. 2007) (rejecting the holding in Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d
634, 640-41 (6th Cir. 2004)). She merely speculated she may be
entitled to relief. In addition, she failed to make any showing
of actual prejudice or that she was deprived of a full and fair
hearing.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 3 of 4 --

4
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --