082455P.pdf   06/04/2010  Rolando Hernandez  v.  Eric H. Holder, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-2455
   Board of Immigration Appeals   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit
   Judges]
   Petition for Review - Immigration. For the court's prior opinions in the
   case, see Hernandez v. Reno, 258 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2001) and
   Hernandez v. Holder, 579 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2009). Petition for rehearing
   is granted, and Part II.D of the court's most recent panel opinion is
   vacated; because an IJ's discretion to deny a request for a continuance
   arises from a regulation, 8 C.F.R. Sec. 1003.29, this court has jurisdiction
   to review the denial of a motion for continuance under Kucana v. Holder,
   130 S.Ct. 827 (2010); denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed
   under an abuse-of-discretion standard; decision to deny a continuance
   was not an abuse of discretion as petitioner failed to establish good cause;
   court lacks jurisdiction to consider the denial of an administrative
   closure as there is no meaningful standard upon which to review the
   decision; even if the court had jurisdiction, closure could not be granted
   because DHS objected to administrative closure and closure can only be
   granted when neither party objects.
  
082455P.pdf   09/01/2009  Rolando Hernandez  v.  Eric H. Holder, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-2455
   Board of Immigration Appeals   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges]
   Petition for Review - Immigration. For the court's prior opinion in the
   matter, see Hernandez v. Reno, 258 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2001). Immigration
   Judge who conducted earlier proceedings in the case was unavailable
   under the regulations covering assignment of judges, and assignment of
   the case to a different judge did not violate petitioner's rights; nor is 
   there a due process to a particular immigration judge, and due process is
   satisfied so long as the hearing judge is impartial and fair; nunc pro tunc
   relief was not available in this case because the argument that petitioner
   would have received asylum but for the application of the wrong legal
   standard was speculative; petition for review is granted as to petitioner's
   "other serious harm" humanitarian asylum claim under 8 C.F.R.
   1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B) because the BIA improperly characterized the claim
   and the BIA's explanation was so vague that the court cannot be sure as
   to the reason for the denial; court lacked jurisdiction to review
   discretionary denial of motion for continuance and denial of motion for
   administrative closure.