T h i s o p i n i o n w a s o r i g i n a l l y r e l e a s e d i n ty p e s c r i p t o n D e c e m-  ber 5, 2011. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2795 R I CA RDO Y ONZ ON C A L MA, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rney Generalo fthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 026 702 335

A RG UE D J UNE 14, 2011

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 5, 2011  O P I NI ON P UB LI S HE D D ECE MBE R 13, 2011 N o. 10

- 3973 O LE H K HO M YSHYN , P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rney Generalo fthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.2 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973

T his co u rt gr a n ted K ho m y shy n’s uno p p osed m otio n to  wai ve or al ar gum en t
. The c ase is the re f or e s ubm i t t ed o n the b riefs. Thi s opi ni on was or i gi nal l y r el ea s ed i n types c ri pton  D ece m ber 5, 2011.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 088 187 224
S UB MI TT ED J UNE 14, 2011

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 5, 2011   O P I NI ON P UB LI S HE D D ECE MBE R 13, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. T h e p et itio n er s in th es e c on so lidated case s, Ri car do Cal m a a nd Ol eh Kh om yshyn, have a g re at deal i n com m on. Both h av e b ee n i n the U ni ted St at es for m an y yea rs w ith ou t p er m iss ion, an d ea c h w ou ld like to ad j u st h is s ta tu s t o th at of law fu l p e rm an en t re sident thro ugh re l ati ves w ho ar e l egi ti m ate l y i n th e U n ited States
. W he n th e tim e cam e for an I m m igration J ud ge (IJ) to i ssue a deci si on, e ac h w as f ound ine l i gibl e forper m anent re si dence because o fthe l ack ofan a pp ro ved f am i l yre lat ive p et itio n, Form I-130 . C on fro n te d w ith that obsta cl e, they ask ed the IJ s t o continue the re m oval pro ceedi ngs, b u t t h e IJs d en ied th os e re q u es ts an d ord er ed re m o va l. W e hav e co nsol i dated thei r peti ti ons f orr evi ew . A l thoughN os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 3

w e a re sa ti sfi ed that w e h av e j uri sdic ti on o vertho se pet i t i o ns , we fi nd n o ab us e o fdi s c r e t i o n i n the j udges ’ rul i ngs a nd thus deny both peti ti ons.

I A Cal m a i s a ci ti ze n o fthe Ph i l i ppi ne s who cam e to the U ni ted S tat es as a t em pora ryworker i n 198 2. In 198 6 h e m ar rie d P am ela Fu os s, a U .S. citiz en , an d sh e fil ed an I130 peti ti on o n hi s be hal f

. But d u ring heri nter vi ew i n supp or t o f t h e ap pli cati on a nd l ate r i n an affi davi t, Fuoss adm i tte d that s he m ar ri ed Cal m a o nl y s o that he co uld r em ai n i n the U ni te d S tat es. S he withdre w her peti tion , pr om p tin g t h e le ga c y Im m igr ati on and N atur al i zati on S er vi ces to pla ce Calm a i n deporta ti on proce edi ngs b ef or e a n IJ
. A fterCal m a f ai l ed to sho w up , the I N S adm i ni str ati vel y cl ose d the case i n Se ptem ber 1987
. C alm a re em er ge d 18 ye ar s la te r, in A p ril 20 05 , w h en h is son Roderi ck, a U
. S. cit i zen, fi l ed a seco nd I- 130 peti ti on o n his beh alf

. T he D ep artm en t of H om eland Secu r it y ( D H S) appr o ve d Ro der ick’s pet i ti o n in J ul y o ftha t y ea r, a nd i n Se ptem ber Calm a m ove d to re sto re hi s e ar l i erdeport ati on hea ring (bythis tim e cal l ed a rem ova l pro ceedi ng) to th e ca l en dar

. Ca l m a i nd icated th ato nc e th e pr o ce eding w as acti ve again, h e w oul d apply f orper m anent r esi dence ba se d o n h i s so n’ s appr o ve d I

- 13 0 pet i ti o n. C alm a’s p e t i t i o n to res to re th e c as e w as su c c es sfu l, th ou gh as w e s h all se e, a P y r r h ic v ict or y. IJ Ze rb e h eld4 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973

a de p o r t a t i o n h e a r i n g, a twh i c h th e j u d g e f o u n d th a tC a l ma w as d ep or ta b le for ov er st ay in g h is v isa , as c h a rg ed in the 1 987 adm i ni strat i ve- cl osur e o rder

. Cal m a info rm ed the IJ thathe was work i ng to o btain an a d j u stm ent o f st atus thr o ug h h i s so n. In r es po ns e, the IJ c ont in ue d the hear i ng f ora yea r to give Cal m a t i m e t o apply f or hi s a dj ustm ent o fst atus and to gi ve the g ov ernm ent a n opportunity to perf or m nece ssa rybac kgr ound checks. A t the next hear i ng, the g ove rnm ent info rm ed Cal m a that i t intended to re vok e hi s s on’ s I

- 13 0 peti ti on ba sed o n th e fra ud ule nt m ar ri age i n 198 6. The IJ co nti nued th e m at te r a s ec o nd tim e t o a wai t th e r es o l ut i o n o fthe re voca ti on pro ceedi ngs. The m on th b ef or e Cal m a’ s next hear i ng, DH S re vok ed R o d e r i c k ’ s I

- 1 3 0 p e t i t i o n a f t e r c o n c l u d i n gth a tC a l ma m ar ri ed Fuos s for i m m i gr ati on be nefi ts. The ag ency deter m i ned that the r ebutta l ev i dence that C al m a s ubm i tted, i ncl ud i ng affi davi ts f ro m Cal m a, hi s cur re nt wife, and the cou ple wh o ar ra nged the sham m ar ri age , f ai l ed to r efut e th e 19 87a ffi dav i t fi l ed by Fu o ss a dm i tt i ngthe fra u d . DH S concl ud ed that the 1 986 m ar ri age “was not va l i d f o r i m m i g r at i o n pur po se s, ” an d tha t C al m a’ s f r au d w a s a “ g o od an d su fficie n t” rea so n to d en y h is s on ’s I13 0 pet i ti o n. W i ththe I

- 13 0 pet i ti o n r ev o k ed, Ca l m a no lon ge r h ad a b as is for se ek in g p er m an en t r e s i d e n c e in the Unite d Sta tes
. A t that point, he a ske d fo r a co nti nuance so tha t he c o ul d a ppea l the de ci si on to r ev o k e to the Board. The IJ acc om m odated this request w i th a postponem ent unti l Octobe r 24, 20 08. Unf o r tu na te l y, w he n C al m a r etur ne d o n tha t dat e, the Board s ti l l had not re sol ved h i s app ealfr om the re voca ti onN os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 5

o fthe I

- 13 0 pe ti ti o n. Cal m a a sk ed f o r y eta no th erc o nt i nua nc e , b u tth i s t i me th e IJ ’ s p a t i e n c e w a s a ta n e n d

. C o mm enti ng tha t he did notbel i eve that any further del ay w as w ar ra nted, h e deni ed thi s l astpost ponem ent a nd o rder ed Ca l ma r e mov e d. Th e Bo a r d di s mi s s e d Ca l ma’ s a pp e a l f r o m the o rder den y i ngthe c o nt i nua nc e i n J uly2 01 0. I t f o und tha t th e pen di ngI

- 13 0 appe alwas i ns uffi ci ent c au se f o r g r an ting th e c o n t i n u a n c e . Mo r e o v e r, th e B o a r d c o n t i n u e d , C a l ma w as unabl e t o show prej ud i ce t o hi s a pp l i cati on f orper m an en t re sid en c e b ec au se h e p re se n te d n o e vid en c e t h at h is appeal fro m the re voca ti on o ft h e I-130 peti ti on had bee n su cc es sful

. ( Thi s was put ting i t m i l dl y ; i n f ac t, fi ve months earli erthe Bo ar d ha d di smi ss ed Cal m a’ s appe alo fthe re vok ed vi sa peti ti on, ci ti ng Cal m a’ s fra ud ule nt m ar ri age . Cal m a di d no t pet i ti o n f o r r ev i ew o ftha t dec i si o n. ) The peti ti on f orr evi ew n ow befo re us in N o. 10

- 2795 i s fro m thi s deci si on o fthe Board. Thi s w as a fi nal deci si on that disc ussed o nl y the co nti nuan ce ques ti on; i ts pract i caleffect w as to l eave u nd i sturbed the IJ ’ s deci si on that Cal m a was r e mov ab l e a s c ha r g e d.

B Kh o my s h y n ’ s c a s e i s s o me wh a tl e s s c o mpl i c a t e d

. He i s a ci ti zen o fU kr ai ne wh o c am e t o the Unite d Sta tes o n a to ur i stv i sa i n 2 00 0. He a ppea r ed athi s fi r sthe ar i ng be f o r e a n IJ i n Mar ch2 00 9 an d a sk ed IJ Ze rbe t o c o nt i nue his case so that h is w ife, w ho w as he rselfa perm an en t U
. S. re sid en t a t t h e t im e, co u ld file an I

- 13 0 p et itio n on h is behal f

. Kh om yshyn expla i ned that they w er e w ai ti ng to6 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 subm i t the peti ti on unti l hi s w i fe be cam e a natur al i zed c itiz en , a sta tu s sh e w ou ld h av e be en elig ible t o be gin se ek i ngfi ve months l at er . ( Oddl y, th e r ec o r d i s si l en t ab o ut her l ate r acti ons. M or e than tw o year s hav e pass ed si nce the IJ ’ s deci si on, but K hom yshyn has no t re veal ed w hether h i s w i fe h a s s i n c e n a t u r a l i z e d

. He c o n c e d e s th a ta tth e t i me ofbr i efi ng the i m m edi ate-re lati ve peti ti on had notbee n subm i tte d.) H e urge d that as the spouse of a citi zen he would be i m m edi ate l y e l i gibl e foradj ustm ent o fst atus, b u t a s t h e s p ou se of a p er m an en t re sid en t h e w ou ld be subj ec t t o DH S ’ s “ pr i o r i ty
- dat e” s y st em an d woul d thus h av e t o w aitse ve ra l ye ar s b efo re be c om in g e ligib le for th is re lief. The IJ de ni e d the c o nt i nu a nc e r e qu e s ta nd o r de re d K hom ysh yn rem oved

. T he IJ not ed that K hom ysh yn ’s w ife had not y et fi l ed an im m edi ate
- re l ati ve peti ti on o n h i s b e h a l f a n d c o n c l u d e d th a t e v e n i f s h e h a d , a co nt i nuan ce woul d st i l l be i na ppr o pr i at e be ca us e, a s a per m an en t re si dent, i t would t ake m or e than f our yea rs f orher to confera benefit o n K hom yshyn. A l though the IJ r eco gniz e d t h a t the w ait w ou ld be red uc ed i f K hom ysh yn ’s w i fe be cam e a ci ti zen, he thou ght i t “ i napp ro pri ate to as s u m e t h at sh e w ou ld qu alify for . .

. n at u ra liza tio n .” In ge n er al t er m s, th e IJ e x p lain ed th at h e c on sid er ed it i m properto co nti nue a c ase “s o that the alien c an at som e future unknow n da te accrue ordevel op an e quity whi chwoul d qua l i fy hi m f o r r el i eff r o m r emov al, ” par ti cul ar l y i n l i g hto fthe a g e nc y ’ s g o a l tha tIJ s c o mpl e t e c a s es w i thi n 18 m onths. K h om ys h yn ’s a p p ea l to t h e B oa rd ch alle n g e d on ly th e IJ’s o rd er d en yin g h i s req u es t fo r a c on tin u an c e u n tilN os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 7 he co uld e stabl i sh h is eli gibi l i ty f oradj ustm ent o fst atus. T h e B oa rd n ot ed th at h e d id n ot ot h er w ise c h alle n g e h is re m ovabi l i ty. E x er c isi ng deno vo r ev i ew, i t affi r m ed th e IJ ’ s deci si on t o deny the continuance re quest. I n so doi ng, i t hi ghl i ghted the IJ ’ s deci si on t o deny “the con tinuance re q u es t b ec au se [K h om ys h yn ’s] w ife h ad n otye t filed th e I130” a n d the f act that K hom yshyn “co uld notes tabl i sh vi sa a va i l ab i l i tya s th e spou se o fa l awfulpe r m an en t re si dent. ” Thi s r eas oni ng, the Board con cl ud ed, was co ns i st en t wi ththe a ppr o ac h i t ha d a nnou nc ed i n M a tter of Ha s h mi, 24 I
. & N. Dec
. 78 5, 79 0- 91 ( B. I
. A. 2009), a pre cedenti aldeci si on p ro vi ding a no n-e xhausti ve l i st off ac t o r s tha t IJ s s ho ul d c o ns i de r whe n de c i di ng a re q u es t fo r a c on tin u an c e. T h e B oa r d c r i tic ize d th e IJ for ta k i ngi nt o a cc o unthi s ca se - co m pl et i o n g o al s, b ut i t co ncl ud ed that rem and w as not necess ar y b ecause th at f ac to r was no t th e IJ ’ s pr i m ar y c o ns i der at i o n. K hom yshyn’ s peti ti on f orr evi ew , N o. 10

- 3973 , se eks re l i effro m the fi nal deci si on o f t he Boar d refusi ng a c on tin u an c e a n d th u s o rd er in g h is re m ov al.

II Bo thpe ti ti o ne r s ar g ue tha t th e IJ ( co i nc i den ta l l y, the sa m e o n e) a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in d en yin g t h e ir re q u es te d c onti nuances. But bef or e we address th at questi on, we m ust deci de w hetherwe have j uri sdic

ti o n o ve r the se t w o p et i ti o ns f o r r ev i ew. In Kucan a v. H o lder, 13 0 S . C t. 82 7 (2 01 0), th e S u p r e m e C ou rth eld t h a tth e j u r i s d i c t i o n - s t r i p p i n gl a n g u a g e o f8 U
. S
. C. § 1 25 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i i ) d i d n o ta p p l y t o a c t i o n s o fthe8 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 A tto rneyGenera l m ade d iscr eti onar y b y r egul ati on, as o ppo se d t o s ta tu te
. Thi s l ed to a r ul i ngi n Kucan a its elf tha tj ud i c i a l r e v i e w ofa mot i o n t o r e o pe n r e mov a l p r o c e e di ngs i n w hi ch the peti ti oner sought asy l um w as avai l abl e, albei t onl y f or abuse of disc re ti on. This w as so despit e the f act that the ult i m ate q u es ti on

— w hetherto r eopen

— re sts fi rm l y withi n the A tto rne y G ener al ’ s di scr eti o n. The BI A must r ea ch a “fi na l ” dec i si on on the ove ra l l r em oval p ro ceedi ng be f or e a peti ti on m ay be fi l ed i n thi s co urt , s ee 8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 2( a) ( 1) ( pr o vi di ng f o r “ [j ] udi ci alr ev i ew o fa fi na l o r dero fr emov al ”) , b ut no o ne di spu te s th ati t ha s d one so in b o tho fthe case s be f or e us, ev en tho ugh the centr all ega l i ssue re l ate s to the c onti nuanc es . A “fi nal ” j ud gm ent in a c i vi l cas e i n fe de r a l c o ur t i s a l s o no r mal l y ne c e s s a r y b e f o re an a pp e a l ma y b e t a k e n t o the c o ur to fa pp e a l s , s e e 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 29 1, b u t t h at d oe s n otm ea n t h a t t h e a p p ella n t is l i m i ted to m ak i ng ar gum ents about the ul ti m ate m er i ts ofthe case . W e r evi ew bo tto m - l i ne j ud gm ents

— a po i nt that is w elli l l ustr ate d by the r ule per m i tting us to a ffi r m o n a b a s i s n o ta r g ue d, a s l o nga s i tfi nd s p ro per su p p or t in th e re c or d . See , e . g. , Ruth v . Tr i um ph P a rtnersh ips, 57 7 F .3d 79 0, 79 7 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); Winters v. Fru -C o n In c., 49 8 F .3d 73 4, 74 3 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 07 ). In te rim rul i ngs a nd alter nati ve theo ri es al i ke ar e fol ded i nto the fi nal j ud gm ent, and so the ap p ella nt m ay ass er t that the di s t r i c t c o ur ts ho ul d h a v e r e l i e d o n a di ffe r e ntg r o un d, o r g r an te d a c o nt i nua nc e, o r de ni ed a m o ti o n i n l i m i ne, o r c o m pel l ed ce r ta i n di sc o ve r y . J ust s o h er e: Ca l m a an d K h om ys h yn n ow fac e fin al or d er s o f rem ov al, bu t t h eirN os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 9 pet i ti o ns do no t at ta ckthe mer i ts o fthe Bo ar d’ s dec i si o ns no t t o a dj u s tth e i r s t a t u s . I fth e y d i d , w e w o u l d b e c o mpel l ed to di smi ss b o th p eti ti o ns f o r r ev i ew f o r want ofj uri sdic ti on. I nstea d, Calm a and Khom yshyn ar e a sse rt
i ng tha t the IJ r ule d prem atur el y; they w ant c onti nuances no tf o r the p ur po s e o fdi g g i ngu p e v i de nc e tha ta l r e a dy exi sts , but to al l ow ti m e fo r othe r age nci es to com ple te th ei r wor k

. The y ar g ue th at, at l ea st i n th is si tu at i o n, a chal l enge to the deni alo fthe continuance i s no t co ver ed by the j uri sdic ti on-stri pp i ng r ule

. Thi s i s a poi nt that des er ve s cl o se a tt en ti o n. I n Ca l m a’ s ca se , the g o ve r nm en t as su m es wi th o ut anal ysi s that Kucan a suppo r ts thi s co ur t’ s j ur i sdi ct i o n a nd that our re vi ew i s under the defer enti alabuse

- of

- disc re ti on st an dar d. In Kho m yshyn ’ s ca se , i n c o nt r as t, the g o ve r nm ent has ar gued that Kucan a hol ds only t hat o ur j uri sdic

tion w as no t eli m inated b y 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (B)(i i) , w hi ch r em ove s j uri sdic ti on to r evi ew a deci si on o f th e A tt or n ey G en er a l “t h e a u th or ity for w h ich is specifie d und erthi s s ubchapter to be in the disc re ti on o fthe Att o r ne y Ge ne r al

. ” I n Jua rez v . Ho lder, 59 9 F
. 3d 560 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) , ho we v e r, de c i de d t wo mon ths af ter Kucan a , we com m ented that Kucan a di d no ta ffe c t8 U. S
. C. § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( B)( i ) , wh i ch r em ove s j uri sdic ti on o ver “any j ud gm ent r ega rdi ng the gr anti ng o fr el i ef und erse cti on 1 182(h) , 11 82( i ) , 12 29b, 12 29c, o r 1255 o f thi s t i tl e. ” S ee al so Leg uiz a m o -M e d i n a v. G o nz a les, 49 3 F. 3d 772 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. In both ofthe case s be f or e us, the ul ti m ate d ec i si on ( adj ustm ent o fst atus) i s g ove rned by one o f the sta tute s list e d in s ecti o n 12 52 (a)( 2)(B )(i)

— spe ci fi ca l l y, s ec ti o n 125 5, whi chg o ve r ns10 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 adj us tmento fs ta tu s

— an d s o the que st i o n b efo r e us i s whether w e hav e j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew the de n i alo f a co n t i n u a n c e s o u g h tf o r th e p u r p o s e o fd e fe r r i ng fi na l de ci si o n in tha t k i nd o fc as e. Al th o ug h Ku ca na i s info rm ati ve, i t doe s no t defi ni ti vel y r eso l ve th i s i ssue. Ind eed, the Court speci fi cal l y l eft open “the questi on w he th er r ev i ew o f [ dec i si o ns m ad e d iscretionary by re gul ati on] would be precl ud ed i f the c ourtwould l ack j u ris d ict ion ov er th e a lien ’s u n d er ly i n g cla im for re lief.” Kucan a, 13 0 S . C t. at 83 9 n .17
. T he govern m en t argu es th at bec au se K hom ysh yn ’s r eque stf o r a c o nt i nua nc e i s “a nc i l l ar y ” to hi s unde r l y i ng re q u es t fo r a d j u st m en t o f st at u s (a n d it m igh t h av e s aid the sam e about Calm a) , this court l acks j uri sdic ti on under 8 U
. S. C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B)( i )
. I t fi nd s s up portf orthi s pos i ti on i n ourpre - Kucan a de ci si o ns i n Leg uizam o-M e di na, sup ra; M a rtinez -M a ldo na do v. G o nz a les, 43 7 F
. 3d 679, 68 3 ( 7th Ci r . 20 06 ) ( pr ec l udi ng j udi ci al r ev i ew o ver m o ti o ns to re open o r re consi der where cour t l acke d abi l i ty to r e v i e w u nd e r l y i ngc l a i m) ; a nd D ave v. Ashcroft, 36 3 F. 3d 649, 65 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) (sam e)
. I t a l so poi nts t o tw o post- Kucan a d ec isio n s, Jua rez , 59 9 F.3 d 5 60 , a nd P a w lo w ska v. Ho lder, 62 3 F
. 3d 1138 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , bo th o f whi chi t r ea ds as a do ptinga b r o ad r ea di ngof Leguizam oM e di na. A cl oser l oo k a t Jua rez a nd Paw l owska and si m i l ar dec i si o ns i n o th erc i r cui ts , ho wev er, r ev ea l s th atthe rul e m ay not be as abso l ute as the gov er n m en t s u gge sts
. The rat ional e o fo urde ci si o n in Subhan v. Ashcroft, 38 3 F. 3d 591 ( 7th Cir
. 2004 ) , al so poi nts t oward a m or e nuanced ap p ro ac h to th is q u es tio n .N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 11 T h e b es t s ta rt in g po in t for ev alu at in g th es e a rg u m en ts is w ith th e dec i si o n in Leg uiz a m o -M edin a . I n tha tc a s e , deci ded thr ee yea rs befor e Kucan a , peti ti onerLegui zam oM edi na had appli ed f or adj ustm ent ofst atus as the s pouse ofa U
. S. ci ti zen. A t the hear i ng ev i dence em er ged sugg est
ing tha t the m arriage w as a sh am . Le gu izam o-M ed ina’s hus ba nd the n wi th dr ew hi s i m m edi at e r el at i ve pe ti ti o n, butl at erhe s ubmi tt ed a ne w affi dav i t swe ar i ng th at th e m ar r i ag e was g en ui ne. The IJ r es o l ve d m at te r s wi tha fi nd i ng tha t the m ar ri age was phony; thi s m ea nt that Legui za m o - M edina w as no t o fg o o d m o r alc ha r ac te r a nd thus w as not enti tl ed to cancel l ati on of re m ov al u nd er 8 U .S.C . § 12 29 b (on e o f th e s t a t u te s m en tio n ed in § 1 252 ( a) ( 2) ( B)( i ) )
. The BI A ag re ed, and the peti ti oner th en ad va n c ed to th is c ou rt
. W e ac kn ow led ge d th at q u es tio n s of law w er e re vie w ab le pu rs uant t o § 12 52( a) ( 2) ( D), but w e pointed out that Legui zam o- M edi na was ra i si ng o nl y tw o ar gum ents: fi rs t, thatthe IJ should have bel i eve d her tes ti m ony ra ther than herhusband’s , and sec ond, thatthe IJ abuse d hi s di scr eti on byd ec lin i ng to gr ant a co nti nuance so that th e h u s b a n d ’ s s i s t e r c o u l d t e s t i fy . 4 9 3 F
. 3 d a t7 74
. We ch ar ac te r i ze d b o tho ftho se a r g um en ts a s f ac tu ala nd thus concl ud ed that nei th er fel l withi n the sco pe of § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( D). W e co m m ented o n the i ssue that was e ve ntua ll y r es o l ve d i n Kucan a ( w he th er sub p art (B)(i i) bars review only ofd e c is ion s m ad e d iscretionary bys ta tu te ) , b utputtha t to o ne s i de sinc e the r el ev an t su bpa r t f o r h er c as e was ( B) ( i )
. The l at te r s ubs ec ti o n, w e s ai d, “f or ecl ose s all review o fde ci si o ns de ny i ng re quests f orcance l l ati on o fr em ova l

. ” W e th en co nti nued as f ol l ows:12 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 W he n a n a l i ens ee k s no t defer r aloffi na l de ci si o n, b ut j u st an op p or tu n i t y t o p re se n t m or e e vid en c e, it is d iffi cu lt to see h o w o ne cou ld “review the d en ialof a continuance” atal l. T he thi ng be i ng r evi ew ed ( w hen re vi ew i s a uthor i zed) i s the agen cy’ s fi nal deci si on (here, a d ecision not to canc el th e p etitioner’s rem oval). I n an appe al f r o m a di st r i ct co ur t, we do n’ t “a ffi r m the o r ders us ta i ni ngthe he ar sa y o bj ec ti o n” o r a ny th i ng s i mi l a r ; we r e v i e w the fi na l d ec i s i o n ( s e e 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 291) to deter m i ne w hetherthe ste ps l eadi ng to that decisio n were er ro neous ( and, i fer ro neous, wh ether th ey w ere h arm less). Ju st so here

— w i th the di ffer ence th a t§ 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) p u t s th e d e c i s i o n b e y o n d r e v i e w, an d thus i ns ul at es the c ho i ce s l ea di ngto tha t dec i si o n. W hen a de ci si o n i s unr ev i ewabl e, a ny o pi ni o n o ne w ay orthe othe r on the pro pri ety of the s teps that l ed to tha t dec i si o n wo ul d b e ana dvi so r y o pi ni o n. Id. at77 5. This ra ti onal e, as the Leguizam o-M e di na co u rtim p licit ly ac k no wl edg ed, i s i n r ea l te ns i o n wi th th e hol di ng i n Sub han
. T h er e we cons i dered the questi on wh ether sect i on 1 252( a) ( 2) ( B)( i ) bar re d con sidera ti on o fan IJ ’ s r efus al to gr an t a co nt i nua nc e to a n a l i enwho w as w ait in g for th e D ep ar tm en t of L ab or to iss u e a ce rt ificate al l owing hi m to be em plo yed i n the U ni ted S tat es. 383 F. 3d at 593. The o nl y c om m ent the j ud ge m ade as he r ule d on S ubhan’s re quest was thatS ubhan m i g hte ve ntua l l y b e ab l e to a cqui r e l awfulpe r m an en t r e s i d e n t s t a t u s b a s e d o n h i s e mpl o y me n t, b u t th a t he w as not el i gib le yetf orthatr el i ef

. Thi s, as we poi ntedN os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 13 out, w as a sta tem ent of the obvi ous. I t w as a d escri pti on o fwhatwas g o i ngo n, r athe r tha n a n e xpl an at ion or a r ea so n. I n fi nd i ng thi s deci si on revi ew abl e, and outs i de the bar o f( B) ( i ) , we o bserved tha t S ubh anwas no t as k i ngus to re vi ew an a dj ustm ent- of

- sta tus deci si on

— somethi ng th a tw o u l d h a v e b e e n b a r r e d b y s e c t i o n 1 2 5 5
. In s t e a d, he was a sk i ngus t o r ev i ew the pr o priety o fthe c o nt i nuance

— that i s t o say, wh etherthe Board’ s d eci si on to r ender i ts fi nal r uli n g on the m er i ts ofthe 1255 peti ti on wh en i t di d w as proce du ra l l y s ustai nabl e. ( Parto fo ur o pini on exam i ned the questi on wh etherr evi ew was bar re d b y (B )(ii), b u t t h at is of n o m om en t in th e p re se n t c as e.) W e co ncl ud ed that Congre ss w oul d n ot h ave w anted “t o pla ce beyo nd j ud i ci alr evi ew deci si ons by the i m m i gr ati on author i ti es that null i f [ y] the sta tute. ” 3 83 F. 3d at 59 5
. Othe r wi s e , “ i mm i g r a t i o n j ud g e s [ c o ul d] with i m pu ni ty re fuse t o gr ant one-week c onti nuances t o per so ns i n S ubh an ’ s p ositi on. And tha t woul d s o und the de at h knel l f orthe re quest, since unl i ke m ostgr ounds f or adj ustm en t o fst atus, adj ustm ents base d on em plo ym ent, l i ke thos e ba sed o n m ar ri age to a U
. S. ci ti zen, cannot be purs ued once the al i en ha s be en r em ove d fr om the Unite d Sta tes
. ” Id. A n al l ega ti on that the ag ency has “null i fi ed” a sta tute sure l y r ai ses a l ega l questi on, co gni zable un d er § 1252(a)(2) (D). That co ncl usi on a l one w oul d be e nou gh to per m i t us to see i fa com parabl e p robl em ta i nts e i therCal m a’ s o r K hom yshyn’ s ca ses . There is m or e, however, thatm ust be s a i d a b o u tt h e l o g i c o ft h e e x c e r p tfr o m Leguizam o-M e di na14 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 th atwe ha ve r epr o duce d abo ve . I t i s true , a s th e g o ve r nm ent a rgues, that Jua rez a nd Paw l owska a pp e a r a t fi rs t b l u s h t o r e a ffi r m Leguizam o-M e di na even after Kucan a . But th er e i s r ea so n t o que st i o n thi s co nc l usi o n. In Juarez, we no te d th a t i n c a s e s wh e r e j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t s t o r e v i e w t he u n d er lyin g c laim for re lief, Kucan a n ow re quir es the r evi ew ofdeni ed continuances fo r abuse ofdi scr eti on. S ee 599 F. 3d at 564- 65. I t was o nl y i n a foo tnot e that the co urt sugge ste d that Leguizam o -M e di na was “unaffecte d by Kucan a . ” Id. at 56 5 n .4. M or e im p or ta n tly , Jua rez was a c as e i n whi chthe p et itio n er s s ou gh t “ va riou s fo rm s o f r elie f fr om rem ov al,” at l eas t o ne o fwh i ch

— as y l um

— wa s s ubj e c tt o j ud i c i al revi ew . 59 9 F
. 3d at 561. The co m m ent about L eg u i zam oM e di na w as thus unnecess ar y t o the outcom e. T here i s a l so l ess to Paw l owska tha n mee ts the e y e. The r e, a l th o ug h the IJ h ad denie d a co nti nuance w here the und er l yi ng r equest w as for ad j us tm en t o f stat us to perm an en t residen ce, there w as no need f orthi s co urt to deci de w hetherthatdeni al was r ev i ewabl e, b ec au se the IJ h ad m ade cl ea r tha t he i ntended to exer ci se hi s di scr eti on t o deny the re quest for adj ustm ent b ecause o fpre vi ous v i sa f ra ud in a n y event. 623 F. 3d at 1140
. Onlyafterco nclu d in g that thi s m er i tsba se d r ea so n was s uffici en t to pr ec l ude r ev i ew di d the cour t co m m ent that Leguizam o-M e di na bars revie w of a c o n t i n u a n c e d e c i s i o n th a ti s “ a n c i l l a r y ” t o a n y o ft h e f o r ms of re lief m en tio n ed in (B )(i). Oth erc i r cui ts ha ve a l so s to pped sh o r t o fa do ptingthe st r o ngv er si o n of L egu iz a m o -M edin a . T h ey h av e a c kn ow ledg ed ani nabi li ty t o r ev i ew a na l o g o us c as es wi th o ut concl ud i ng tha t the abs ence ofj uri sdic ti on overthe m er i tsN os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 15 ofthe fi nal r el i efso ught al ways bar s r evi ew o fpro cedural r eque st s l i k e m o ti o ns f o r a c o nt i nua nc e o r t o r eop en. Se e, e.g., A lz a in a ti v. Ho lder, 568 F.3d 844 , 849-50 (10th Cir. 2009 ) ( f i nd i ng j uri sd ict ion al sig n ifi cance, f or § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) p u r p o s e s , i n th e g r o u n d o n wh i c h the BI A b ase s it s de c i s i o n, r e s e r v i ngp o s s ib i l i t y o fa n e mbe dded due proc ess o r othe r l ega l questi on); V argas v. H o lder, 5 67F
. 3d 387, 39 0 ( 8th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( co ns i der i ng i m pl i ca ti o ns o fa b r o ad vi ew o fj ur i sdi cti o n- st r i ppi ng unde r ( B) ( i ) f o r mot i o ns t o r eo pena pr o ce eding see ki ng r el i eff orwh i ch r evi ew would be unavai l able, an d reje c t i n g s u c h a ru le); O bio ha v. G o nz a les, 43 1 F
. 3d 400, 40 5- 06 ( 4th Ci r. 20 05) ( ackno w l edgi ng no j uri sdic ti on to r ev i ew a de ci si o n to de ny c an ce l l at i o n o fr emov al, b ut no tingtha t th e BI A “ ne verg o t th atf ar ” an d fi ndi ng review able its decision to d en y a requ est to rem an d ). T h e c o m m on th em e t h at ru n s t h ro u gh th es e c as es is the i m port ance o fthe re l ati on be tw een the r eso lu ti on o f the proce du ra l re quest and the dispos i ti on of the underl yi ng cl ai m . The co ur t’ s i nabi l i ty to r ev i ew th e un d erl y i ng c laim for re lief “is , st an d in g alon e, an in su ffici e n t b as is to pr ec l ude r ev i ew” o f a r el at ed pr o ce du ral m o ti o n. Al za i nati, 568 F
. 3d at 849. Instea d, j ud i ci alr evi ew i s for ec los ed by § 12 52 (a)( 2)(B )( i) on ly if th e a ge n c y’s rat ion ale f o r den y i ng th e pr o ce dur al r eque st al so es tabl i sh es the peti ti oner ’ s inabi l i ty to preva i l o n the m er i ts ofh i s underl yi ngc l ai m . Tha t was the c as e i n Paw l owska , i n whi chthe IJ’s d e c i s i o n res te d on th e p et itio n er ’s fra u d . See , e.g., M a riuta v. G o nz a les, 411 F. 3d 361, 365 ( 2d Cir. 2005) ( “W here a denia l i s base d o n the BIA ’s ‘m er i ts- deci ding’ anal ysi s o fthe al i en’ s e nti tl em ent t o the ul ti m ate16 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973

re l i efso ught, the denia l [ ofa m oti on t o re open] m ay p rop erly be said to be a dec isi on ‘un d er’ the st a tu tory p ro vis ion p ro vid in g t h at u ltim at e re lief.”) ; Pil i ca v. A shcroft, 38 8 F
. 3d 941, 94 8 ( 6th Ci r. 20 04) (“[ A ] m oti on t o re open thatdoes noti nvol ve the consi derat i on of re l i efo n th e m er i ts s ho ul d no t be tr ea te d as ‘ r eg ar di ng ’ the g r an ting of [p er m an en t re sid en c e].” ). I n kee ping w i th thi s a nal ysi s, we have asse rt ed j uri sdic

ti o n t o r ev i ew pr o ce dur alr ul i ng s l i k e co nt i nua nc es i n a nu m ber o f case s d ecid ed after Kucan a . Thus, f ori nstance , i n V a ho ra v . Ho lder, 626 F .3d 90 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , we had to dec i de w hetherwe had j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew an IJ ’ s r efusalto cl ose a peti ti oner ’ s ca se adm i ni str atively so th ati t co ul d b e j o i ne d wi thhi s pa r en ts ’ c as e. Not i ng ther e that Kucan a established the revi ew abili ty of an ali en ’s re quest fora continuance, w e app l i ed si m i l arr eas oni ng to ad m in ist ra tiv e c los u re s. Id. a t 91 8. In M ozdze n v . H o lder, 622 F. 3d 680 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , we exer ci sed j uri sd i cti on o verthe denia l o fa continuance i n ci rcum sta nces quit e li ke th ose w e face here

— th at i s, a ca se i n whi chthe r e i s no j ur i sdi ct i o n t o r ev i ew the unde r l y i ngc l ai m f o r r el i ef

. The M ozdze n pet i ti o ne r s so ug hta c o nt i nua nc e to pur su e ca nc el l at i o n o fr emov alo r a dj us tmento fs t a tu s a fte r ha ving co m m i tt ed vi sa fr au d b y f al l i ngi nt o the t r ap l ai d b y the st i n g k n ow n as O p er at ion D u ra n go . Id. at68 2; se e a l so Wrob lew ska v. Ho lder, 656 F.3d 473 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. Even th o ug h we woul d no t ha ve be en ab l e to r ev i ew the pe ti ti o ner s’ appli c at ions f orei thercance l l ati on o r adj ustm ent o f statu s, see 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 1 229b and 1255, w e said th at “[w ]e r ev i ew di sc r et i o na r y deci si o ns s ucha s den i al s o fc o nt i nuan c es u n d er th e d efe re n tia l ab u se o f d isc re tio n st an d ar d .”N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 17 Id. at68 4. In the end, thi s di d the M ozdzens l i ttl e g oo d, as w e w en t on t o fi nd no abuse ofdi scr eti on, but thi s was a ru lin g on th e m er its rat h er th an a j u ris d ict ion al d ec isio n . We a r e p e r s u a d e d th a tth e r e a r e i d e n t i fi ab l e c i r c u msta nces und erwh i ch a cri ti calpro ceduralstep in a re m ova l proce edi ng, such as the denia l of a continua n c e that i s s ought f orpurposes o fall ow ing a notherag ency to com p lete its review , the d en ialof a m otion to recon side r, a refusa l t o r e man d, o r a r e fus a l t o r e o pe n a c a s e , l i es w i thi n ourj uri sdic ti on eve n though w e a re bar re d f r o m e v a l u a t i n g th e B I A’ s u l t i ma t e d e c i s i o n i n th e c i r c u mst an c es sp elle d ou t in § 12 52 (a)( 2)(B )(i). [B ec au s e t h is opi ni on r eco nci l es seve ra l co m petin g l i nes o fautho ri ty w i thi n the ci rcui t, i t has bee n ci rcul ate d to al l acti ve j ud ges pu rs uant to Ci rcui t Rul e 4 0( e)
. N o j ud ge i n acti ve ser vi ce vot ed to hearthes e ca ses e n b anc .] So m e tim es rev iew w ill be po ss ibl e be ca us e, a s i n Sub han , the chal l enged ac ti on effecti vel y nul l i fi es th e sta tutor y s chem e a nd thus for al l prac ti calpurposes ra i ses a quest i on o fl aw . S om eti m es r ev i ew wi ll b e p o ss ibl e be ca us e, a s i n Jua rez , the re quest f orthe unrevi ew abl e r eli efwil l be coupl ed w i th a re quest for relie f like a sy lu m th at is re vie w a b l e . If, ho w ev er , i t i s i m po ss ibl e to di st i ng ui sh th e ch al l en g ed ac ti o n f r o m the det er m i na ti o n o n th e m er i ts , th en j ur i sdi ct i o n i s lac k i ng a nd the p e t i t i o n mus tb e di s mi s s e d. I t i s wor thr ec al l i ngtha t a ce nt r althe m e i n Kucan a was t he i m po r ta nc e o fj udi ci alr ev i ew t o pr o te ctthe p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s o fth e a g e n c y p r o c e s s . A s th e S u p r e me Court pu t i t, m oti ons to re open ar e a “pro ceduraldevi ce ser vi ng to ensur e t h at ali ens a re ge tting a f ai r chance t o18 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 have thei r cl ai m s hear d.” 130 S. Ct. at 837. T h is pu rpos e i s , i fa n y th i n g, e v e n mo r e i mp o r t a n tf o r a l i e n s l i k e C a l ma an d K hom yshyn w ho wil l be str i ctl y b ar re d fr om se ek i ngr ev i ew o fthe de ni alo fthe i r c l ai m s f o r a dj us tment of s t at u s. Kucan a e m pha si ze d “ th e pr es um pti o n f av o r i ng j ud i ci al revi ew o fadm i ni str ati ve acti on. ” Id. at83 9. It note d that “ [ w ] hen a statute i s r eas onabl y s usceptibl e t o dive rg ent i nter preta ti on, ” itshould be constr ued i n a way t h a t p er m its rev iew
. I d. Th e pr o vi si on her e, § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( B)( i ) , pro hibi ts j ud i ci alr evi ew o fdeci si ons on adj ustm ent o fst atus, but it say s no thi ng ab out re vi ew ofante cedent pro cedural d ec i si ons such as continuances th ats ha p e t he f i na l o ut co m e. W e no te tha t o ur si ste r ci rcui ts have com e to confl i cti ng r esul ts on t h e q u es tio n w h et h er j u d icia l rev iew is ev er av aila b le i n case s where re vie w o fthe und er l yi ng cl ai m f orr el i ef i s for ecl ose d

. Com pare Thim ran v. Ho lder, 59 9 F
. 3d 841, 84 5 ( 8th Ci r . 2 010) ( y es ) , wi th Freem a n v . Ho lder, 596 F. 3d 952, 9 56 n .2 ( 8th Ci r. 20 10) ( no) ; and com pare Ass aad v. A shcroft, 37 8 F
. 3d 47 1, 474 ( 5th Ci r . 2004 ) ( per cu r i am ) ( no ) , wi th R odriguez v. Ashcroft, 25 3 F
. 3d 797, 80 0 ( 5th Ci r. 20 01) ( yes , u nl ess the Board addres sed the m er i ts of t h e re q u es t fo r re lief). W e shoul d no t confuse the unavai l abi l i ty of j ud i ci al re vi ew w ith the uni m port ance o fthe ki nd s o fr el i efthat ar e cove re d b y § 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( B)( i ) : waive rs o fi nadm i ssibi l i ty (§§ 1182(h ) an d 1182(i) ); can cellati on of rem oval ( § 1229 b); vo lun taryde par tu r e ( § 12 29 c) ; a nd a dj us tmento fs ta tu s ( § 1 255)
. These ar e allm eas ures thatCongr ess has chose n to m ake ava i l abl e t o deser vi ng al i ens; it has s i m plychos en at the sam e ti m e t o m ake the com petent age ncy’ s deci si onN os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 19 on the m er i ts oftho se types ofr elie ffi nal

. S om eti m es, w hen a c on tin uance i s r equeste d, the c ourtm ay not eve n know w hat i s at stake

. I f, f orexam ple , an a l i en ha s ap p eared before an IJasking both f or asylum ( a r ev i ewabl e dec i si o n) o r v o l unt ar y de par tu r e ( a no nreview abl e deci si on) , and ask s the IJ f ora continuance so th ats he c ande ci de whi cho ne t o pur su e, the g r an t o r d e n i a l o fs u c h a c o n t i n u a n c e c a n b e r e v i e we d wi tho ut up set ti ng the ul ti m ate fi nal i ty ofthe deci si on o n the m er i ts. J uri sdic ti on i s som ethi ng that m ust b e a scer tai nabl e ex ante ; i t can not d ep en d on event s th at occu r m ont hs or years aft er th e p et itio n is filed

. I n sum m ar y, deci si ons l i ke the r ulings o n continuances tha tCa l ma and Kho mys hy n ha v e c ha l l e ng e d, wh i c h do not i m pli cate the m er i ts of a fi nal unrevi ew abl e ord er but i nstea d m er el y deferthe re sol uti on o fthe m er i ts so that th e proces s a s a wh ol e ca n be com ple ted with i ntegr i ty, m ay in t h e rig h t c irc u m st an c es , an d d o h er e , f a ll w ith in ou r j u ris d ict ion
. D a ve v . Ash cro ft, 36 3 F .3 d 6 4 9, if it s ur v i v e d Kucan a , i s d isti ng uish able from the c ases b efore us be ca us e al l th r ee o f th e dec i si o ns at i ssu e i n D ave

— a rul i ng on cancel l ati on of re m ova l, a rul i ng on a m oti on to r ec o ns i derthe deni alofcan ce l l at i o n, and a rul i ngo n the r efus alt o r eo penthe pr o ce eding

— w er e cl ose l y l i nked w i th the m er its ofthe unrevi ew abl e deci si on o n cancel l at i o n. And H uan g v. M ukasey, 534 F.3d 618 ( 7th Cir. 20 08 ) , r el i ed en ti r ely o n the de ci si o n in Kucan a fr om th is cou rt that the Suprem e Cour t r eve rs ed. S ee 533 F. 3d 5 3 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. H av i ngs a t i s fi e d o u r s e l v e s th a twe have j uri sdic ti on o verthes e p et itio ns, we can m ove o n to the m er i ts.20 N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 III U nfo rtunatel y forbo th peti ti oner s, o ur di scussi on here wil l be br i ef

. The st andard ofr evi ew , as we have al r ea dy no te d, i s o ne tha t g ive s g r ea t defer en ce t o the r es po ns ibl e IJ
. An IJ ha s th e di sc r et i o n to gran t a c o nt i nuance f o r “ g o o d c au se s ho wn, ” se e 8 C. F
. R. § 1 00 3. 29 , b ut as long as h e g iv e s a reason for his dec isi on, this cou rt w i l l uphol d the deci si on “ unle ss i t ‘ w as m ade w ithout a ra ti onalexp l anati on, i nexpli cabl y depar ted fro m es tablish ed pol i ci es, o r re ste d on an i m perm i ssibl e ba si s s uch as i nvi dio us di scr i m i nati on a gainst a part i cul arr ace or gr oup. ’ ” Victo rv . H o lder, 616 F.3d 705 , 708 (7th C ir. 2010 ) , q uoti ng Achac os o- San ch ez v. IN S, 77 9 F
. 2d 1260 , 1265 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) ; se e Sub han, 38 3 F .3d at59 5. Inad d iti on, the pri nci ple of harm l ess er ro r appli es to adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ngs in gene ra l, and to i m m igr atio n rul i ngs i n p ar ticular

. S ee Y ua n v . Att’y G en. of th e U nited Sta tes, 64 2 F .3d 42 0, 42 7 (3 d C ir. 20 11 ); Victo r, 616 F .3d at71 0; Ja pa rku lo va v. Ho lder, 615 F.3d 6 9 6 , 7 01 (6th C ir. 2010); A l a m v . G o nz a les, 438 F.3d 184 , 187-88 (2d Cir. 2006); Ngaruri h v. A shcroft, 37 1 F .3d 18 2, 19 1 n .8 (4t h C ir. 20 04 ). I n C alm a’s case , i t i s the har m l ess er ro r pri nci ple that do o m s hi s e ff o r t to move a he ad wi thhi s pet i ti o n. The Bo ar d ha s al r ea dy di smi ss ed Cal m a’ s appe al f r o m the r ev o ca ti o n ofhi s s o n’ s I

- 13 0 pe ti ti o n. Thatde ci si o n mea ns that Calm a ca nnot s how pre j ud i ce fro m the IJ ’ s deni al of h is c o n t i n u an c e m ot ion . W ith ou t t h e s u c c es sfu l I

1 3 0 p e t i t i o n, h e c a n n o ta dj u s th i s s t a t u s . S e e 8 U
. S
. C. § 1 25 5(a ); Loc khar tv. Napol i t ano, 57 3 F
. 3d 251, 25 4 ( 6th C ir. 20 09 ); A

fz a l v. Ho lder, 559 F .3 d 677, 678 (7th Cir.N os. 10

- 2795 & 10

- 3973 21 20 09 ); La bojew ski v. G o nz a les, 407 F.3d 814 , 822 (7th C ir. 2005 )
. N o am ount o fdefer ra l o fCal m a’ s pro ceedi ngs co ul d ha ve a nye ffec t o n the f i na l out co m e. Fo r thi s r ea so n, hi s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w mus tb e de ni e d. K hom yshyn f aces a differ ent probl em . The IJ i n hi s ca se provi ded a sound r eas on f ordenyi ng the r equest f or a co nti nuance. The j ud ge expla i ned that fou r yea rs was too l ong to w ai t t o al l ow fo r K hom yshyn’ s a dj ustm ent, and he r efused to specul ate abo ut th e u lti m ate el i gibi l i ty o fKh o mys hy n’ s wi fe f o r n a t ur a l i z a t i o n ( no tt o me nti on w hat s teps o n herhusband’s behalf she w oul d or w ou ld not take i f sh e atta ined U
. S. c it izensh ip). Khomys hy n a r g ue s th at th e IJ i g no r ed hi s ar g um en t th ath is w i fe woul d s o o n b e el i g ibl e f o r c i ti ze ns hi p, b ut th e re c or d d oe s no t su p p or t him

. T h e IJ ex p licit ly a c kn ow ledged t h is possibi l i ty, but then r efused, i n the abse nce o fa ny e vi den ce tha t natu ra l i za ti o n was ne ce ss ar i l y f o r th

com i ng, to as sum e th at it w oul d com e t o pass. There was n o ab use o fdi scr eti on in the IJ ’ s deci si on t o tak e into acco unt the specul ati ve nature o fKh om yshyn’ s ho pes f o r l a t e r a dj u s t me n t, a s we l l a s th e p o t e n t i a l l y l e n g th y t i me th at w ou ld ela p se w h ile h e w ait ed

. Forthes e r eas ons, we D EN Ybo th Cal m a’ s peti ti on f or re vi ew ( N o. 10

- 2795 ) and Khom yshyn’ s peti ti on f orr evi ew (N o. 10 -39 73 ).

12- 13- 11