2005 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 7-21-2005 

# F au s t ino 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 . 04-4229

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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
" F aus t ino v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 798. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/798NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN 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. 04- 4229
A L F R E D O F A U S T IN O , Pet i t i oner

v. A LB ER TO G O N ZA LES, A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent
Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 95- 833- 789)
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 29, 2005 B efore: R O T H , R E N D E L L and B A R R Y , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y21, 2005)
OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antA l fr edo Faus t i no pet i t i ons thi s C our tforr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni alU nderI N A § 245( i ) ( 1) , an al i en phy s i cal l ypr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es , w ho i s the 1 b e n e f icia ryo f: ( i ) a pet i t i on forcl as s i fi cat i on unders ect i on 204 t hatw as fi l ed w i t h t he A t t or neyG ener al on orbefor e A pr i l 30, 2001; or ( i i ) an appl i cat i on fora l aborcert i fi cat i on unders ect i on 212( a) ( 5) ( A ) that w as fi l ed pur s uantt o t he r egul at i ons of the Secr et aryof Laboron orbefor e s uch dat e; . . . m ayappl yt o t he A t t orneyG ener al forthe adj us t m entof hi s orhers t atus to th a t o f a n a lie n la w f

u lly a d m itte d f

o r p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n c e . 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 2 5 5 (i )(1). 2 of hi s m ot i on fora cont i nuance and gr ant i ng hi m vol unt arydepartur e. Forthe fol l ow i ng
re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound A s w e w ri t e sol el yfor the p art i es, ou r r eci t at i on of the fact s w i l l be li m i t ed to tho se
nece s s aryt o ourdet erm i nat i on. Faus t i no, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of Por tugal , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i t houti ns pect i on i n 1991. O n M ay1, 2003, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y( “D H S”) comm ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m bys ervi ng hi m w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear . O n J ul y24, 2003, Faus t i no appea r ed athi s M as t erH ear i ng w i t hout
c o u n s e l, a n d w a s g ra n te d a c o n tin u a n c e o f tw o w e e k s in o rd e r t o o b ta in c o u n s e l. A t h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s o n A u g u st 7 , 2 0 0 3 , F a u stin o c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ili ty and r eques t ed a c ont i nuance i n or dert o pur s ue a pe ndi ng l aborcert i fi cat i on appl i cat i on fi l ed w i t h t he N ew J er s eyD epart m entof Laboron A pr i l 29, 2001. Faus t i no r eques t ed 1 t hati n t he al t ernat i ve, t he I J gr anthi m vol unt arydepartur e. T he A t t orneyG ener al di d not
o b jec t to F a u stin o ’s r e q u e st f o r a b rie f c o n tin u a n c e . W h e n a sk e d , h o w e v e r, F a u stin o d id notknow w hen hi s l aborcert i fi cat i on appl i cat i on w oul d be adj udi cat ed, and i ndi cat ed thatI N A § 245( i ) ( 2) pr ovi des t hatupon r ece i ptof s uch an a ppl i cat i on, the A t t orney 2 G ener al m ayadj us tt he s t atus of the al i en t o t hatof an a l i en l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e if: ( A ) t he al i en i s el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve an i m m i gr antvi s a and i s admi s s i bl e t o t he U ni t ed St at es forperm anentr es i dence ; and ( B ) an i m m i gr antvi s a i s i m m edi at el yavai l abl e t o t he al i en atthe t i m e the appl i cat i on i s fi l ed. 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 2 5 5 (i )(2). 3 i tm i ghtbe compl et ed w i t hi n s i x m ont hs
. T he I J , expl ai ni ng thatthe l aborcert i fi cat i on
a p p lica tio n h a d b e e n p e n d in g f o r m o re th a n tw o y e a rs a n d th a t h e w a s n o t in c lin e d to g ran t an in d ef

init e a d jou rnm en t, d en ied F au sti n o ’s req u est an d g ran ted h im v o lun tary d e p a r tu r e . F a u s t i n o t i me l ya p p e a l e d t o th e BI A. A thi s hear i ng befor e the B I A , Faus t i no as s ert ed thathe s houl d have be en gr ant ed
a c o n tin u a n c e to a llo w f o r t h e a d ju d ic a tio n o f

h is p e n d in g la b o r c e rt if ic a tio n a p p lic a tio n . T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, and det erm i ned thatFaus t i no di d not dem on strat e el i gibi l i t yfor adjustm ent of st atus beca use he “ l acked bo t h an app roved v i sa p eti ti o n an d an ap p rov ed labo r ce rt ifi ca ti o n . ” (O ct. 8 , 2 0 0 4 B IA O p . at 1.) T h e B IA 2 f o u n d th a t th e IJ d id n o t er r in d e n y in g th e c o n tin u a n c e re q u e st, a n d th a t in lig h t o f h is fai l ur e t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yforadj us t m entof s t atus , Faus t i no di d notdemonstr at e any pr ej udi ce thatw oul d cons t i tut e a due pr oces s vi ol at i on. T he i ns t antpet i t i on fol l ow ed. I I . St andard of R evi ew W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s o f th e B IA u n d e r 8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 2 ). P o n c e -L e iva v . A sh c ro ft , 331 F. 3d 369, 371 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. W e r evi ew t he4

B IA ’s a f f ir m a n c e o f

th e IJ ’s d e n ia l o f

a c o n tin u a n c e re q u e s t f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Id
. at 3 7 7 . U n d e r a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd , the B IA ' s d e c isio n sh o u ld o n lyb e re v e rse d if it is a rb itr a ry, irr a tio n a l o r c o n tr a ry to la w . T i p u v . I NS , 2 0 F .3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). O rd in a ri ly, w e re v ie w o n ly th e d e c is io n o f th e B IA , n o t th a t o f

th e IJ . A bdul aiv. A sh c ro ft , 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 -49 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). H o w ev er, w h ere , as h ere , the B IA expr es s l yadopt s ordefe r s t o a fi ndi ng of the I J , the C our tal s o r evi ew s thos e part s of the IJ ’s o p in io n . Id
. at549, n. 2. I I I . D i s cus s i on Faus t i no cont ends t hatt he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n aff i r m i ng and adopt i ng t he I J ’ s deci s i on t o denyhi s M ot i on forC ont i nuance des pi t e hi s pendi ng l aborcert i fi cat i on
a p p lica tio n . W e h a v e sa id th a t: t he ques t i on w hetherdeni al of a cont i nuance i n an i m m i gr at i on p r o c e e d i n g c o n s t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on cannotbe dec i ded thr ough t he appl i cat i on of br i ght
- l i ne rul es ; i tm us tbe r es o lved o n a ca s e by cas e bas i s acc or di ng t o t he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of ea ch ca s e. P once-Lei va , 331 F. 3d at377 ( quot i ng Ba i r e s v . I NS , 856 F. 2d 89, 91 ( 9 C i r . 1988) th ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. I n t hi s cas e, t he B I A j us t i fi ed i t s aff i r m ance of the I J ’ s deci s i on on t he bas i s t hatFaus t i no l acke d bot h an appr oved vi s a pet i t i on and an a ppr oved l abor
cert i fi cat i on, t hus he had notes t abl i s hed el i gi bi l i t yforadj us t m entof s t atus . G i ven Faus t i no’ s fai l ur e t o offe revi dence thathe w as el i gi bl e foran i m m i gr antvi s a orthatone
w as i m m edi at el yavai l abl e t o hi m atthe t i m e the appl i cat i on w as fi l ed, and thatthe deci s i on t o adj us tt he s t atus of an a l i en i s ul t i m at el yw i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the A t t or ney5

G en era l, the B IA d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in af firm ing the IJ’s d en ial o f F au sti n o ’s
c o n tin u a n c e re q u e s t. Id
. at371 ( hol di ng the i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deni al of a c ont i nuance req u est d id n o t con sti tute an ab u se o f d iscreti o n ); Ony e me v . I NS , 1 4 6 F .3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 3 (4 th C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng t he B I A di d noterri n aff i r m i ng the I J ’ s deni al of a c ont i nuance
r eques tw her e ther e w as no pr i m a fa ci e appr ovabl e vi s a pet i t i on pendi ng and al i en had
n o t ap p lied f

o r sta tu s a d

ju stm e n t); Ol u

y e mi v . I NS , 9 0 2 F . 2 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 3 -34 (1st C ir
. 1990) ( hol di ng no abus e of di s cr et i on w her e I J deni ed al i en’ s r eques tforcont i nuance beca us e al i en had no i m m i gr antvi s a ava i l abl e and i tw as unl i kel yA t t orneyG ener al
w oul d exer ci s e di s cr et i on t o perm i texcl udabl e al i en t o s t ay )
. T her efor e, the B I A di d not abu se i t s di scr et i on w hen i taffirm ed the I J’ s deci si on t o d enya con t i nu ance requ est beca us e Faus t i no fai l ed t o m eett he s t atut oryr equi r ement s foradj us t m entof s t atus under IN A § 2 4 5 (i ). Faus t i no fur t hercont ends t hathe w as deni ed due pr oces s w hen the B I A aff i r m ed th e IJ ’s f in d in g th a t h e w a s in e lig ib le f o r a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s p u rs u a n t to IN A § 2 4 5 (i ). I n l i ghtof Faus t i no’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de evi dence thathi s l aborcert i fi cat i on appl i cat i on
w oul d s oon be adj udi cat ed coupl ed w i t h hi s fai l ur e t o demonstr at e anypr ej udi ce that
w oul d cons t i tut e a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, thi s ar gum enti s w i t houtm er i t . M or eover , an al i en’ s el i gi bi l i t yfora part i cul arpr ocedur e, e. g. , adj us t m entof s t atus , i s nota pr ot ect ed lib e rt yin te re s t. Kova t

s v. R utgers , 8 2 2 F . 2 d 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 1 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ Th e S u p r e me C o u rt h a s m a d e c lea r th a t p ro m ise s o f sp e c if ic p ro c e d u re s d o n o t cr e a te in ter e sts6

pr ot ect ed byt he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. ”) ( ci t i ng O l i m v. W aki nekona , 461 U
. S. 238, 250 (1 9 8 3 )) . T h u s , F a u s tin o ’s d u e p ro c e s s a rg u m e n t f a ils
. A s a r es ul tof Faus t i no’ s fai l ur e t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yforadj us t m entof s t atus and
an yp rejud ice tha t w o u ld co n sti tute a d u e p roc ess v iolati o n , w e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA ’s aff i r m ance of the I J ’ s deni al of a mot i on forcont i nuance w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on, and di d notr es ul ti n a vi ol at i on of Faus t i no’ s due pr oces s r i ght s . Forthe r eas ons s et f o r t h a b o v e , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.