2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-28-2009 

# S ira yi v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3015

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S ir a yi v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 926. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/926UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3015

___________ N T O M B IF U T H I A N A C L E D A S IR A Y I, Pet i t i oner

vs ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN os . A 98- 616- 172) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y15, 2009 B efore: F U E N T E S , W E IS and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

O pi ni on fi l ed

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Pet i t i onerN t om bi futhi A nacl eda Si r ay i s eeks r evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s di s m i s s i ng herappea l fr om the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s or der deny i ng hera cont i nuance i n herr emoval pr ocee di ngs . Si r ay i s oughtthe cont i nuance s o a pendi ng For m I - 130 adj us t m entof s t atus appl i cat i on coul d be adj udi cat ed. B eca us e1

deni al of the cont i nuance w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on, w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for re v ie w . I.

Si r ay i i s a ci t i zen of

Sout h A fr i ca. A n au pai r , s he ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es on o r about J uly21 , 20 03 , as a non -i m m i grantexch ang e vis i t or. H er J -1 vi sa author i zed he rt o s t ayand w or k i n t he U ni t ed St at es forone y ear . Si r ay i r emai ned i n the U n ited S tate s a f

ter h e r v isa e x p ire d . In M a rc h 2 0 0 5 , sh e w a s s e rv e d w ith a n o tice to a p p e a r i n im m ig ra tio n c o u rt to d e f e n d c h a rg e s th a t s h e w a s re m o v a b le u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 1 )( C )( i) .

O n M a y2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , S ir a y i m a rr ie d N a th a n M u rr a y , a U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n . M urr ayfi l ed a r el at i ve vi s a pet i t i on ( form I - 130) on Si r ay i ’ s behal f, w hi l e s he fi l ed an appl i cat i on t o adj us thers t atus ( form I - 485) . Si r ay i i nform ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge of h er a d justm en t of

statu s ap p li ca ti o n in N o v em b er 2 0 0 5 , an d tw o co n ti n u an ce s w ere gr ant ed on thatbas i s . O n J une 27, 2006, U SC I S deni ed the pet i t i on, ci t i ng a l ack of evi dence of a bona fi de mar r i age. I n a not i ce s entt o Si r ay i ’ s addr es s of r ecor d on M ay 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , U S C IS in f

o rm e d h e r o f

its c o n c lu sio n a n d p ro v id e d h e r 3 0 d a y s to su b m it r ebutt al orevi dence . R ece i vi ng no r es pons e, U SC I S deni ed the appl i cat i on on J une 27, 2006, and aga i n m ai l ed not i ce t o t he pr operaddr es s . Si r ay i and herhus band both deny re c e iv in g th e n o tic e .2 O n J ul y20, 2006, Si r ay i m oved fora cha nge of ve nue bec aus e s he r el ocat ed t o N e w J e r s e y. T h e m o t i o n w a s g r a n t e d o n J u l y 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 . I n th e n e w v e n u e , S i r a yi conce ded herr emovabi l i tyata hea r i ng. A ppar ent l yunaw ar e thatthe form I - 130 w as deni ed, Si r ay i r eques t ed and w as gr ant ed y etanothercont i nuance . Som et i m e af t erthat hear i ng, Si r ay i appar ent l ybeca m e aw ar e thatthe I - 130 w as deni ed bec aus e on D ece m ber 6 , 2 0 0 6 , M u rr a yf

ile d a s e c o n d re la tiv e p e titio n . A tthe nextl i s t i ng of herr emoval pr ocee di ngs i n February2007, the governm enti nform ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge thatthe fi r s tI - 130 appl i cat i on w as r ej ect ed, and Si r ay i m oved t o cont i nue the r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai n t o aw ai tthe pr oces s i ng of the s ec o n d p eti ti o n . T h e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e re fu sed to g ran t a co n ti n u an ce o n S ir ay i’ s r eques t ed gr ound, not i ng thatthe fi r s tI - 130 appl i cat i on, w hi ch w as deni ed, w as al s o fi l ed byherhus band. N everthel es s , the I m m i gr at i on J udge cont i nued the mat t ert o A pr i l 12, 20 07 , so S i ray i cou l d co nsi der pet i t i on i ng t o h ave the fi rs tapp l i cat i on reopen ed an d so s h e c o u ld c o n te m p la te a lte rn a tiv e f o rm s o f re lie f. D ur i ng the A pr i l 12, 2007 hear i ng, Si r ay i ’ s couns el i nform ed the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e th a t p e tit io n in g to re o p e n th e f irst I-1 3 0 a p p lica tio n w a s im p o ss ib le beca us e the dea dl i ne t o do s o had pas s ed. A ccor di ngl y , Si r ay i r eques t ed y etanother c o n tin u a n c e so th e se c o n d p e tit io n f o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s c o u ld b e a d

ju d ica ted . T h is r eques tw as r ej ect ed; neverthel es s , the mat t erw as cont i nued forone w eek, s o couns el coul d agai n cont empl at e al t ernat i ve form s of r el i ef. A tthe fi nal l i s t i ng on A pr i l 19, 2007,M urr ayfi l ed a thi r d I - 130 appl i cat i on on Si r ay i ’ s behal f i n J ul y2007, w hi ch the 1 im m igrati o n jud g e d id n o t hav e a n o cc asio n to co n side r. 3 S ir a y i a s k e d f

o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re , w h ic h w a s g ra n te d . A n appea l t o t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) fol l ow ed on M ay11, 2007. O n J une 10, 2007, the s econd I - 130 appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus w as deni ed bythe U SC I S. T he B I A aff i r m ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s or derw i thoutopi ni on i n J une 1 2008. T hi s t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal or der s of r emoval pur s uant t o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . W hen the B I A aff i r m s w i thoutan opi ni on, w e r evi ew the i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deci s i on. D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 240 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc) . W e r evi ew an i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deci s i on t o denya r eques tfora cont i nuance fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . H ash m i v. A tt ’y . G en . , 5 3 1 F . 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 5 9 -60 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W hethera deni al of a c ont i nuance cons t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on depends on the part i cul arfac t s and ci r cumst ance s of a c as e. See i d. at260; s ee a l s o 8 C . F. R . 1003. 29 ( s t at i ng thatan “[ i ] m m i gr at i on J udge maygr anta mot i on fora cont i nuance forgood ca u se sh o w n . ”).

In a p rio r c a se , H a sh m i, w e h e ld th a t an im m ig ra tio n ju d g e a b u se d h is d iscreti o n w h en h e d en ied a co n ti n u an ce to allow fo r th e a g en cy ’s ad jud icati o n o f a n I - 1 3 0 a p p lica tio n . T h e re th e d e n ial re ste d o n th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s d e sire to m a n a g e h is4

cal endareff

i ci ent l y ; the I J di d nott ake i nt o acc ountthe s peci fi c fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of H as hm i ’ s cas e. H as hm i , 531 F. 3d at260- 61. H er e, i n contr as t , the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deni al of a c ont i nuance r es t ed on a r eal i s t i c appr ai s al of Si r ay i ’ s l i kel i hood of benef i t t i ng fr om an I - 130. See al s o i d. at260 ( not i ng thatH as hm i w as el i gi bl e fors t atus ad justm en t and sim p lyw ait ing fo r th e a g en cyto p roc ess th e I-1 3 0 ). H ere , S ir ay i’ s firstI1 3 0 a p p lic a tio n h a d a lr e a d yb e e n d e n ie d .

W e uphel d t he deni al of a c ont i nuance t o al l ow forthe adj udi cat i on of the al i en’ s w i fe’ s appl i cat i on fora l aborcert i fi cat i on i n K han v. A t t orneyG ener al , 448 F. 3d 226, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e not ed thati n K han’ s s i tuat i on, “anycont i nuance w oul d be i ndefi ni t e” a nd thathe off er ed “onl ythe s pecul at i ve pos s i bi l i tythatats om e poi nti n t he f u tu re ” h is w if

e m ig h t o b ta in th e c e rt if ic a tio n . K a h n , 4 4 8 F .3 d a t 2 3 5 . I n deny i ng Si r ay i herfi nal cont i nuance r eques t , the I m m i gr at i on J udge expl ai ned thatSi r ay i had:

al r eadyhad an I - 130 pet i t i on fi l ed forherbyhers pous e and thatpet i t i on w as deni ed bythe G overnm entaft er co n side rati o n o f th at ap p ea red to b e it s m erit s. . . [T ]he C o u rt does notconcl ude thatther e i s good caus e t o cont i nue the cas e foradj udi cat i on of y etanotherI - 130 pet i t i on fi l ed bythe sa m e sp o u se . T h e re sp o n d e n t w a s g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ityto h a v e a n I-1 3 0 p e tit io n a d ju d ica ted o n h e r b e h a lf b yth is sp o u se a n d that o p p o rtu n ityw as n o t suc ce ssf u l. If the co u rt w ere to ad o p t r esp o n d en t’ s co u n sel’s view p o int, the C o u rt w oul d become s ubj ectt o an endl es s r ound of I - 130 fi l i ngs thatw oul d ext end i ndefi ni t el yi nt o the futur e as l ong as r es pondent ’ s hus band w oul d be w i l l i ng t o fi l e an I - 130 aft er e a c h s u c c e s s iv e I- 1 3 0 w o u ld b e d e n ie d b yth e G o v e rn m e n t.O f

c o u rs e , w e k n o w n o w th a t th e s e c o n d I- 1 3 0 w a s a ls o re je c te d b yth e U S C IS . 2 In i t s bri ef, the G ov ernm ent ar gu es that Si ray i i s now st atutor i l yi neli gibl e for a vis a 3 b e c a u s e s h e f

a ile d to c o m p ly w ith th e Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e ’s v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re o rd e r. See governm ent ’ s br i ef, 22 & n. 10. A tthe t i m e the I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed the c o n tin u a n c e h o w e v e r, t h e v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re o rd e r h a d n o t b e c o m e e f f e c tiv e . 5 (A . R . 1 0 ). T h e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e a lso n o ted th at sh e h ad p rev iou slyg ran ted S ir ay i’ s c o u n se l ti m e to se e if

th e f irst I-1 3 0 p e tit io n c o u ld b e re -o p e n e d , b u t S ira y i’s c o u n se l, bel i evi ng i tw as t oo l at e t o r e- open the deni al of the fi r s tI - 130 pet i t i on, chos e t o fi l e a s econd pe t i t i on i ns t ead. I d. T hes e ar e r eas onabl e obs ervat i ons bythe I m m i gr at i on J udge.

W e c o n c lu d e th a t S ir a y i’ s c a s e is m o re a n a lo g o u s to K h a n th a n H a s h m i. T he s pecul at i ve natur e of K han’ s w i fe’ s appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of l abors tr i kes us as s i m i l art o Si r ay i ’ s s pecul at i ve cl ai m thatthe s econd I - 130 m i ghts om ehow r es ul ti n an out come di ffe r entfr om the fi r s t . U nl i ke H as hm i , w ho appea r ed t o be el i gi bl e for 2 adj us t m entof s t atus , i tr eas onabl yappea r ed t o the I m m i gr at i on J udge thatSi r ay i w as i nel i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t atus as a cons equenc e of the fi r s tI - 130 pet i t i on, w hi ch had notbeen r e- opened. A n al i en l i ke Si r ay i w ho m arr i es aft err emoval pr ocee di ngs have begun i s s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t atus unl es s s he es t abl i s hes thatthe ma rr i a g e i s b o n a f

i d e . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 2 4 5 . 1 ( c ) ; s e e a l s o 8 C. F . R. § 2 4 5 . 1 ( c ) ( i i i ) ; 8 U. S . C. 3 § 1255( e) ( 3) . A s the U SC I S spe ci fi cal l yr ej ect ed the coupl e’ s fi r s toffe rof pr oof pr i ort o the i m m i gr at i on court ’ s rul i ng, Si r ay i w as noty etel i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t atus . W e6

cannotconcl ude thatthe I m m i gr at i on J udge abus ed herdi s cr et i on i n deny i ng the cont i nuance . W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .