Mahamadou Coulibaly v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0200n.06
Filed: March 16, 2007
No. 05-4333
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MAHAMADOU COULIBALY,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
BEFORE: NORRIS, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Petitioner Mahamadou Coulibaly appeals from a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals, which adopted the Immigration Judge’s ruling denying Coulibaly’s request
for a continuance during his removal proceedings. Removal proceedings were instituted against
Coulibaly in June 2002 after he overstayed his visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i). During the
pendency of his case, Coulibaly was granted five continuances, in part, because he claimed he would
be marrying a United States citizen. In May 2004, in his final hearing before the Immigration Judge,
Coulibaly was still not married. Further, the woman that he was engaged to marry had not yet
obtained a divorce from her current spouse. The Immigration Judge reasoned that Coulibaly’s
engagement was too speculative to warrant yet another continuance.

-- 1 of 3 --

Coulibaly v. Gonzales
05-4333
- 2 -
We review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision for an abuse of discretion.
Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 627, 634 (6th Cir. 2006). When the Board of Immigration
Appeals adopts the reasoning of the Immigration Judge, we review the Immigration Judge’s
reasoning directly to determine whether the Immigration Judge’s decision should have been upheld.
Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275, 282-83 (6th Cir. 2005). We conclude that the Board of Immigration
Appeals acted within its discretion when it affirmed the reasoning of the Immigration Judge. See
Id. at 634-35.
Petitioner also contends that, by denying a continuance, the Immigration Judge somehow
compromised a potential claim for asylum under section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16. However, there is no evidence in the record that petitioner ever
presented these claims to either the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals. If, as
here, a petitioner fails to exhaust administrative remedies, a federal court is without jurisdiction to
consider the petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 558 (6th
Cir. 2004).
Coulibaly’s pending motions to supplement the authorities and to supplement the record are
denied. The June 6, 2006 motion to supplement the record contained documents that were not before
either the Immigration Judge nor the Board of Immigration Appeals and will not be considered by
this court.

-- 2 of 3 --

Coulibaly v. Gonzales
05-4333
-3-
The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --