Erdogan Gulsoy v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1295
ERDOGAN GULSOY,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 4, 2015 Decided: September 24, 2015
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE, P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Hillel R. Smith, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Erdogan Gulsoy, a native and citizen of Turkey, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order
denying his motion for a continuance and finding him removable.
We deny the petition for review.
An IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause
shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2015). We review the denial of a
motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Lendo v.
Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007). We “must uphold
the IJ’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.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the IJ properly considered the denial of a
prior I-130 visa petition as he considered the viability of the
pending I-130 visa petition. In re Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785,
792 (B.I.A. 2009) (IJ may consider whether underlying visa
petition is prima facie approvable). “These prior filings or
other evidence of potential fraud or dilatory tactics may impact
the viability of the visa petition underlying the motion.” Id.
Accordingly, we conclude that there was no abuse of
discretion and deny the petition for review. We dispense with

-- 2 of 3 --

3
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --