Case ID: f-appx_456/html/0666-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nimish Shirish DAVE; Jui Rohit Patel, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Nimish Shirish Dave; Jui Rohit Patel, Petitioners, v. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-71415, 07-72573.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 31, 2011.
    Reyna M. Tanner, Esq., Manulkin Glaser & Bennett, Fountain Valley, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Peter H. Matson, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondents.
    Before: FERNANDEZ and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nimish Shirish Dave and Jui Rohit Patel, citizens of Canada, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen to consider an application for adjustment of status, and their motion to reconsider that denial. We deny the petitions.

Dave asserts that the BIA erred when it determined that he had not made out a prima facie case for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(l), (2). We disagree. Dave failed to present sufficient evidence that he had an approved labor certification. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A). Absent that, Dave could not spell out a prima facie case for relief because he needed that in order to obtain an immigrant visa, which he, in turn, needed to obtain adjustment of status. The BIA did not abuse its discretion. See Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1142 n. 4 (9th Cir.2010); Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2007); see also INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 725, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).

Petitions DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      .While Patel filed a separate appeal, no separate arguments are made on her behalf. Thus, we treat her position here as derivative of Dave’s and will not refer to her separately. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d).
     
      
      . See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B).
     
      
      . See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C).
     
      
      . 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(C).
     
      
      . 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A).