Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03464/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03464-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General United States of America
Respondent
Paula Cruz de Ortiz
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 14-3464

_______________

PAULA CRUZ DE ORTIZ,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

_______________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA–1 A044-927-258)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Annie S. Garcy

_______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 21, 2015

BEFORE: FISHER, CHAGARES AND COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: May 11, 2015)

_______________

OPINION*

_______________

______________ 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3464 Document: 003111958405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2015
2

COWEN, Circuit Judge.

Paula Cruz de Ortiz petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“BIA”), which, in turn, dismissed her administrative appeal from the decision of 

the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal, 

denying her request for a continuance, and ordering her removal. We will deny her 

petition for review.

I.

In 1989, Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, attempted to 

enter the United States with an altered passport. Petitioner was convicted of forgery or 

false use of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1543 and deported. Subsequently, her 

husband (a United States citizen) filed an I-130 petition for alien relative, which was 

approved. A visa was issued for Petitioner by the American embassy, and she was 

admitted to the United States as a conditional lawful permanent resident on February 9, 

1995. However, neither Petitioner nor her husband disclosed the existence of Petitioner’s 

prior conviction. On December 24, 1996, Petitioner filed an I-751 petition to remove the 

conditions of her residency. This I-751 petition was approved on December 30, 1996.

On June 27, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) charged that 

Petitioner was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) as an alien who was 

convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 

who was inadmissible at the time of entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) and 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Petitioner moved to terminate the removal proceedings on the 

Case: 14-3464 Document: 003111958405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2015
3

ground that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a), DHS had no legal authority to initiate removal 

proceedings more than five years from the date of her purported adjustment of status. 

The IJ agreed with the Petitioner and dismissed the case. In a published decision, In re 

Cruz de Ortiz, 25 I. & N. Dec. 601 (BIA Sept. 20, 2011), the BIA sustained DHS’s appeal 

and remanded the case to give Petitioner an opportunity to apply for any relief for which 

she may be eligible (and to allow the IJ to enter a new decision). On remand, the IJ 

pretermitted Petitioner’s application for cancellation and ordered her to be removed. The 

IJ also denied her motion to postpone because no I-130 petition (which could lead to an 

inadmissibility waiver) had been filed on Petitioner’s behalf. Petitioner appealed to the 

BIA, but the BIA dismissed her appeal.1

II.

The BIA recognized that this Court has held that the five-year statute of limitations 

established by § 1256(a) extends to removal proceedings where the grounds of 

removability are based on the alien’s fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining adjustment 

of status.2 See Garcia v. Attorney General, 553 F.3d 724, 725-29 (3d Cir. 2009); 

Bamidele v. INS, 99 F.3d 557, 558-65 (3d Cir. 1996). However, the agency determined 

 

1 Petitioner filed a motion to reopen proceedings, which included proof that her 

United States citizen daughter submitted an I-130 petition on her behalf (after the IJ’s 

decision was issued). The IJ denied the motion on jurisdictional grounds (i.e., by the time 

the motion was filed, there was an appeal pending with the BIA), and Petitioner did not 

appeal to the BIA from this denial of her motion to reopen. According to Petitioner, the 

daughter’s petition has been approved.

2 We generally possess jurisdiction over this petition for review pursuant to 8 

U.S.C. § 1252.

Case: 14-3464 Document: 003111958405 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2015
4

that this provision does not apply to an alien “who was admitted as a lawful permanent 

resident from abroad and whose status was therefore never adjusted.” De Ortiz, 25 I. & 

N. Dec. at 604. According to Petitioner, “the BIA erred in failing to sua sponte terminate 

proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a), which Petitioner submits, barred the 

institution of removal proceedings against her, as she adjusted her status, from conditional

to permanent resident, within the United States.” (Petitioner’s Brief at 7.) We agree with 

the Attorney General that the removal of conditions to lawful permanent residency does 

not fall under § 1256(a). Specifically, Petitioner did not file an application for adjustment 

of status to become a lawful permanent resident. Instead, she was admitted as a lawful 

permanent resident through the consular process and remained a lawful permanent 

resident when the conditions were removed. See, e.g., Malik v. Attorney General, 659 

F.3d 253, 257 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Malik did not obtain an adjustment of status to become an 

LPR [lawful permanent resident]. Instead, he derived his LPR status through the process 

described in 8 U.S.C. § 1201. Because § 1256(a) explicitly discusses ‘adjustment of 

status,’ the statute of limitations does not apply to the institution of removal proceedings 

where Malik did not obtain his LPR status in this manner.”).

Petitioner further contends that she was entitled to a continuance and that the IJ’s 

refusal to grant her a continuance violated her due process right to a full and fair hearing. 

This Court does not have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against an alien 

who is removable by reason of having committed a crime involving moral turpitude, 

although we do retain jurisdiction with respect to colorable constitutional and legal 

Case: 14-3464 Document: 003111958405 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/11/2015
5

claims. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). We accordingly lack jurisdiction to 

consider a claim that the agency abused its discretion by denying a continuance. See, e.g., 

Rachak v. Attorney General, 734 F.3d 214, 216-17 (3d Cir. 2013). With respect to 

Petitioner’s due process assertions, we conclude that the IJ conducted a full and fair 

hearing in this matter. We note, for instance, that Petitioner’s counsel notified the IJ at a 

2010 hearing that she would be filing for a waiver of inadmissibility on the grounds that 

“she has two U.S. citizen children.” (AR57.) When asked how much time would be 

necessary to present evidence in support of a waiver, the attorney responded, “Not long.” 

(AR59.) However, no I-130 petition had been submitted as of the February 2013 merits 

hearing—at which time the IJ appropriately refused to postpone this proceeding.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

Case: 14-3464 Document: 003111958405 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/11/2015