Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): notwithstanding the approval of the [visa] petition. Garcia, 16 I. & N. Dec. at 657. Although Garcia created an exception to the general rule that deportation proceedings need not be continued for resolution of a pending visa application, we do not believe that the IJ abused its discretion in declining to continue Onyeme’s deportation proceedings, notwithstanding the presumption announced in Garcia. First, as set forth above, Garcia did not create an inflexible rule, requiring an IJ to continue deportation proceedings, regardless of the merits of the pending visa petition. Rather, under Garcia, the IJ retains the discretion to deny a request for a continuance where the adjustment of status application would be denied on statutory grounds. See id.; see also Hassan, 110 F.3d at 493 (<HOLDING>); Oluyemi v. INS, 902 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (1st 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the bia did not err in affirming the ijs denial of a continuance request where there was no prima facie approvable visa petition pending and alien had not applied for status adjustment (B) holding that continuance of deportation proceedings was not merited where alien had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude such that his visa petition and adjustment of status application were not prima facie approvable (C) holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending (D) holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling (E) holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings
Output (English): holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling