2006 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 11-16-2006 

# M y ys aro sh 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 . 05-4502

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a nova 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 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M y ys ar osh v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 198. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/198NOT 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. 05- 4502 I VAN MYYS AR OS H, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES O n Pet i t i on forr evi ew of a D eci s i on o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 78 685 907) I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es M . H oneym an Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember9, 2006 B E FO R E : SL O V I T E R , C H A G A R E S, and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: N ovember16, 2006) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s m at t ercomes on be for e the courton a pet i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on of the Bo a r d o f I mmi g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s e n t e r e d S e p t e mb e r9 , 2 0 0 5 , d i s mi s s i n g a n a p p e a l f r o m a deci s i on of an i m m i gr at i on j udge. E ven though t he pet i t i onerI van M yy s ar os h, w ho had2

unl aw ful l yent er ed thi s countyw i t houti ns pect i on, i ni t i al l ys oughtr el i ef byobt ai ni ng asy l um or the w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al as w el l as r el i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e, ul t i m at el yhi s appl i cat i on evol ved i nt o an ef for tt o obt ai n r el i ef thr ough an adj us t m entof hi s s t atus i n t hi s countr ybeca us e the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof Labor a p p ro v e d h is L a b o r C e rtific a tio n . In se e k in g th is re lief h e a sk e d th e B IA to re m a n d h is c a se to th e IJ f

o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s. T h e B IA re jec ted h is re m a n d a p p lica tio n in its Sept ember9, 2005 deci s i on, poi nt i ng outt hatt he dec i s i on on w hi ch M yy s ar os h r el i ed, M at t erof V el ar de- Pachec o, 23 I & N D ec. 253 ( B I A 2002) , deal tw i t h adj us t m entof s t atus beca us e of mar r i age a nd t hus w as i nappl i cabl e. M yy s ar os h t hen fi l ed hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. Subse quent l y , M yy s ar os h as ked the B I A t o r econs i deri t s deci s i on. I n hi s m ot i on M yy s ar os h ar gued thatt he I J m i s t akenl ydeni ed a r eques tfora cont i nuance t hathe s ought s o t hathe coul d obt ai n an adj us t m entof s t atus . I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , he pr edi cat ed h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra n a d j u s t me n to f

s t a tu s o n “ c u r r e n t l yp e n d i n g l e g i s l a t i o n i n US C ongr es s combi ned w i t h t he fa ctt hat[he] i s a bene fi ci aryof an a ppr oved Labor C er t i fi cat i on appl i cat i on. ” A pp. at9. I n t hi s r egar d he cont ended that“i ti s unfai rand u n ju st, a n d a lso a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n f

o r th is c o u rt to g ra n t co n tin u a n c e s to a p p lica n ts w i t h L aborC er t i fi cat i on t o 04/ 30/ 01, butt o denys uch r el i ef f ort hos e Labor C er t i fi cat i ons [that ] ar e fi l ed af t er04/ 30/ 01 w hen I - 140 i s notappr oved i n ei t hercas e and o n lyp a rtial e lig ib ili tyf o r e v e n tu a l ad

ju stm e n t is sh o w n .” Id . T h e re f e re n c e to I-1 4 0 is to3

an i m m i gr antvi s a pet i t i on. M yy s ar os h’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on r efe r ence d A pr i l 30, 2001, fort he fol l ow i ng r eas on: I N A § 245( i ) ( 1) , 8 U . S. C . § 1255( i ) ( 1) , author i zes s om e al i ens w ho w er e i nel i gi bl e t o adj us tt hei rs t atus i n t hi s countr yt o paya pena l t yfort he conve ni ence of adj us t i ng t hei rs t atus w i t houtl eavi ng t he countr y . Sect i on 245( i ) or i gi nal l yhad a s uns et dat e of Sept ember31, 1997, butC ongr es s s ubs equent l yext ended thatdat e unt i l A pr i l 30, 2001. See Pub. L . 106- 554, 114 St at . 2763, 2763A - 324. M yy s ar os h does notcl ai m t hat C ongr es s has ext ended the dat e aga i n and s o faras w e ar e aw ar e i thas notdone s o. E ven t hough s ect i on 245( i ) has expi r ed, i tr emai ns vi abl e as t o “gr andfa t her ” appl i cat i ons for a lien s w h o h a d lab o r c e rtific a tio n s f iled o n th e ir b e h a lf

o n o r b e f

o re A p ril 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 . T h is g ra n d f a th e r t re a tm e n t is s u b

je c t to th e a p p lic a tio n h a v in g b e e n a p p ro v a b le w h e n f ile d . S e e IN A § 2 4 5 (i )( 1 )( B )( ii) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 (i )( 1 )( B )( ii) ; 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 0 (a )( 1 )( i) (B ). M yy s ar os h, how ever , fac ed an uns ur m ount abl e barr i ert o obt ai ni ng r el i ef unde r IN A § 2 4 5 (i) b e c a u se h is la b o r c e rtific a tio n w a s f iled o n Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 . H is re f e re n c e to

“ p e n d in g le g is la tio n ” w a s to a n a tte m p t in C o n g re s s to e x te n d th e A p ri l 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 d a te . O n N o v em b er 3 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA u n d erstan d ab lyd en ied M yy saro sh ’s m o ti o n to rec o n side r, p o in tin g o u t th a t h is “ sp e c u lativ e f u tu re e lig ib ili tyf

o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s f a iled to e s ta b lis h g o o d c a u s e f

o r a c o n tin u a n c e o f

h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s .” A p p . a t 2 . M yy s ar os h has notfi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of thatdeci s i on. W e ar e ata l os s t o under s t and the bas i s fora pet i t i on forr evi ew i n t hi s cas e. T he4

A t t or neyG ener al corr ect l yobs erves t hatM yy s ar os h s i m pl yi s notel i gi bl e forr el i ef b e c a u s e h i s l a b o rc e r t i f i c a t i o n wa s f

i l e d mo r e t h a n t wo y e a r s t o o l a t e t o s a t i s f yt h e I NA § 24 5(i ) deadl i ne. In these ci rcum st ances a co nti nu ance o r a r em and w ou l d b e po i ntl ess a n d th u s w e c e rta in lyw ill n o t h o ld th a t th e B IA e rre d in d e n y in g M yy sa ro sh re lief. W h ile w e r ecogni ze thatM yy s ar os h hopes fora fa vor abl e s t atut or ychange , cour t s and admi ni s t r at i ve tr i bunal s need notpr edi cat e thei rdeci s i ons on s pecul at i on aboutw hat u n e n a c t e d s t a tu t e s mi g h tp r o v i d e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , n o ma t t e rwh a ts t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w we a p p l yh e r e we a r e c o n s t r a i n e d t o d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew of the dec i s i on of the B I A of Sept ember9, 2005, w i l l be deni ed.