## 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. 08

- 3367 T HE LMA L O PE Z F I GUE RAS, etal., P etitio ners, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

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

. No s. A99-346- 275, A 99-346- 276, A 99-346- 277 &A 99-346- 278
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 26, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 27, 2009

Befo re B AUER, K ANN E , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . The l m a F i g ue r as , a na ti ve a nd c itiz en of th e P h ilip p in es , en te re d th e U n i t ed Sta te s in 2002 w it h h er hu sba nd and tw o children

. A llf ou r oversta yed the i r vi si tor s’ vi sas . In 200 6 F i guer as fi l ed an appli c a t i o n t o a dj us th e r s t a t us t o tha to fa l a wfulp e rm anent r esi dent bas ed on her e m plo ym ent a s a r egi ste re d nurse. The Dep ar tm ent of H om el and S ecuri ty denie d her appli cati on a nd i ni ti ate d rem ova lpro ceedin gs. Fi guer as2 N o. 08

- 3367 tr i ed to r enew her a pp l i c ati on duri ng the r em ova lpro ce eding s, b utthe i m m i g r at i o n j udg e ( “IJ ”) he l d tha t sh e had abandoned her appli cati on b ecause she f ai l ed to su bm it the requ ired d ocu m en ts 14 d ays before he r heari ng. In f act, Fi guer as ’s a tto rneyhad fi l ed a m oti on f o r a c o nt i nua nc e a m ont h bef o r e th e sc he dul ed he ar i ng in orde r to obtain th e d o c u m en ts estab li sh ing Figueras’s el i g ibi l i tyt o a dj us t st atus. The IJ, mis ta k en l y b el i ev i ng that the m oti on had bee n fi l ed by an at torney wh o had no t e n t e r e d a n a p p e a r a n c e i n th e c a s e , d i s r e g a r d e d t he m o ti o n. Ra th er, at th e sc he dul ed he ar i ng o n th e m er i ts , the IJ de cl ar ed th e adj us tmenta ppl i ca ti o n aba ndo ne d a nd o r de r e d the p e t i t i o ne r s r e mov e d. On app eal the Boa rd o fI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s ( “BI A ”) as su m ed th at th e IJ h ad ab u s e d h is d isc re tio n in decl i ni ng to r ule o n the m oti on f orthe continuance. H owev er , it hel d that the er ro r w as harm l ess bec ause Fi guer as w as i neligibl e foradj ustm ent o fst atus. In so h old ing, the BIA fa i l ed to co nsi der the addit i onal evid en ce o fF i g ue r as ’ s el i g ibi l i tyt o a dj us t st atus tha t sh e su b m i tte d on appeal

— evi dence thatthe IJ ’ s e rr orhad effecti vely e xcl ud ed fro m the re cor d. Fi guer as peti ti oned thi s co urt f orr evi ew , ar gui ng tha t the BI A vi ol ate d her ri ght t o a r eas onabl e o pp or tu ni ty to prese nt ev i dence of he r el igibil ity. W e agree. U nd er 8 U
. S. C
. § 12 29a(b)(4), Fi guer as had a r i ght t o a r eas onabl e opp or tuni ty to prese nt herev i dence ofel i gibi l i ty f oradj ustm ent o f sta tus. The BI A vi ol ate d thi s r i ght b y r efu sing to ei ther re m and the ca se to al l ow the IJ to co nsi der he r add i ti onal evi dence orr ulin g on the m er i ts ofhercl ai m as a m att er o fl aw. Acco r di ng l y, we g r an t the pe ti ti o n fo r r ev i ew a nd re m and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs.N o. 08

- 3367 3

H er em p l o y e r d id no t file a v isa p etition on her b eh alf 1 until M arch 2006. The record app ears to sh o w that Aqu il ino Figueras , M r. 2 Figueras’ s grand f ath er, is a naturali zed U

. S. ci ti zen. Aft er (co n tin u ed ...) I . B a c kg r o und A ftero ver sta yi ng hervi si tor ’ s v i sa by m ore th an thr ee y ea r s, The l m a F i g uera s fi l ed ana ppl i ca ti o n wi ththe Dep ar tm ent o fH om ela n d Secur i ty ( “DH S”) i n 200 6 t o adj ust herst atus base d on herem plo ym ent a s a r e g i s t e r e d nur se. See 8 U.S
. C. § 1 255( a)
. S he nam ed her husband, Danil o Fi guer as, and two chi l dren as deri vati ve ben efi ciaries ofher ap p li cation
. DH S de nied Fi gu e r a s’s appli c a t i o n i n 2 0 0 7f o r thr e e r e a s o ns : ( 1 ) s he f a i l e d t o su b m it h er n u rs in g c re d en tia ls intim e; (2) s h e w as ine ligibl e foradj ustm ent o fst atus because she had over sta yed h er vis a, see 8 U .S.C . § 12 55( c) ; and ( 3) she coul d not es ca pe th e co ns eque nc es o f he r i l l eg al st atus byi nv o k i ng 8 U.S
. C . § 1 25 5( i ) bec ause she was notthe benefi ci ar y o f a v i s a p e t i t i o n fi l e d b e f o r e Ap r i l3 0 , 2 0 0 1
. D HS 1 th eni ni ti at ed rem oval pr o ce eding s ag ains t ea cho fthe peti ti oner s. A t the re m ova l hear i ng bef or e the IJ, the F iguer ase s’ att or ney r eq u es ted addit i onalti m e t o explo re any re m a i n i n ga v e n u e s o fr e l i e f

. S p e c i fi c a l l y, h e n o t e d th a tt he pet i ti o ne r s m ayb e el i g ibl e f o r a dj us tmento fs ta tu s th roug h D an il o Fi gu eras, w ho w as li sted on an I- 130 form fi l e d b y h i s gra nd f a the r o n b e ha l fo fh i s f a the r a nd a pprove d i n 197 7. The IJ gr anted the Fi guer ase s a thr ee- 24 N o. 08

- 3367

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 bec om i ng a c i t i z e n, Aqu i l i n o fi l e d a n I

- 1 3 0 fo r m ( a p e t i t i o n f or an al i enr el ativ e) onbe hal fofLaur o Fi gue ra s , hi s m ar ri ed s on w ho stilllived in the Ph ilipp ines. Th e I-1 3 0 also listed D an ilo F igu era s, L au ro ’ s m ino r an d then -u nm arr ied son , as a b en eficiary
. T he p etition w as ap p ro v ed in 19 77
. L au ro im m igr ated to the U nit ed Stat es and soon the reafterbecam e a l aw ful perm anent r es ident. D anil o rem ained i n the Phili pp ine s a n d m arri ed T he lm a b ef or e c om i ng t o the Uni t ed S t at es i n 2 00 2 o n a vi s i t or ’ s vi s a. The lm a F i gue ra s ar gue s thats he i s e l i gibl e f or a dj us tm ento fs t a t us thr ou ghh e r h usba nd ’ s “ gr a nd f a the r e d” st a t u s, b u td o e s n o tfu r th e r e x p l a i n h o w h e r h u sb a n d ’s s t atus m i ghtc onfere l i gibi l i t y onhe r and h erc hi l dre n. m onth co nti nuance and setthe m er i ts hear i ng f orA ugust 22 , 200 7. H e re q u ire d th e p et itio n er s t o s u b m i t th eir adj us tmenta p p li ca ti o ns , a ny s uppo r tingdo cument s, a nd th ei r m er i ts br i ef by Augus t 8, 20 07
. On J ul y 20 the F i g u e r a s e s fi l e d a mo t i o n fo r a c o n t i n u a n c e , r e q u es ti ng m or e t im e t o c olle c t t h e n ec es sa ry d oc u m en ts . Th e IJ d id n otru le on th e m ot ion be c au se h e m i s t a k en ly th ou gh t it had been fi l ed by an at torney who had not m ade an appearance i n the case . A ccor dingl y, b y th e t i m e o f the m er i ts he ar in g, the Fi guer ase s had notpro du ced th ei r a dj us tmenta ppl i ca ti o ns o r a ny s upp ort i ngdo cum en ta tio n . Th e IJ h eld th at th ey h ad ab an d on ed th eir a pp l i c a t i o ns a nd o r de r e d the m r e mov e d. O n ap p ea l, th e B IA affir m e d th e IJ’s o rd er of re m ov al, buto n di ffer en t g r o unds. I t as su m ed wi th o utde ci di ng th at th e IJ h ad ab u se d h is d isc re tio n in d ec lin in g t o ru le on th e Figuerase s ’ m o tion for a con tinu an ce. H ow ever,N o. 08

- 3367 5 th e BI A he l d tha tthe e r r o r wa s h a r ml e s s b ecause The l ma F i g ue r a s , the p r i nc i pa la pp l i c a nt, h a d o v e r s tay ed h er vis a a n d w as th u s i n e l i g i b le t o a dj u st h er st at u s. See 8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 5( c) ( al i en s who f ai lto m aint ain a c o nt i nuou sly law fu l st at u s in th e U n ite d St at es ar e no t e ligib le f o r adj us tment o f st atus )
. F ur th er m o r e, th e BIA c o nc l ud e d s he di d n o tqua l i fyfora dj us t men tu nd e r 8 U. S
. C. § 12 55 ( i ) , whi chwai ve s an y pe r i o d o fi l l eg als ta y i n the Uni te d S ta te s i fa v i sa pe ti ti o n was fi l ed o n b eh al fo fthe p e t i t i o n e r o n o r b e f o r e A p r i l3 0 , 2 0 0 1 , be c a u s e h e r e mp l oy er d id n otfile a v isa p et itio n on h er be h alf u n til 200 6. The Bo ar d no te d F i gue r as ’ s ar g um en t th ats he m ight be eli gible to ad j us t statu s throu gh her hu sba nd ’s al l ege d gra nd f ather ed sta tus but re fus ed to co nsi der her evi dence on thi s p oin t b ec ause i t had notbee n subm i tt ed o r i g i na l l y t o the IJ
. The BI A the n di smi ss ed th e a p p e a l, a n d F i g u e r a s p e t i t i o n e d f o r r e v i e w.

I I . Discussi on Fi guer as fi rs t chal l enges the IJ ’ s r efusalto r ule o n her m o tio n for a co n tin u an c e, ar gu in g t h at th e re fu sa l co n st ituted an abuse o fdi scr eti on. The focus ofthi s a rgum en t, how eve r, i s m i spl aced. The BI A subse quentl y i ss ued an ind ep en d en t d ecision tha t assu m ed e r r or on th e IJ’ s pa r ta nd we nto n t o de c i de the m er i ts o fF i g ue r a s ’ s a ppli cati on . W hen the BIA i ssues an ind ependent opi ni on that does not m er el y adopt or supp l em ent the op i ni on6 N o. 08

- 3367

W e ha v e p rev iou sly h eld tha t con tinu an ce d ecision s f all 3 w ith in th e ju ri sd ic tio n a l b a r o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2)(B )(ii). Iqbal A l iv. G on zale s , 5 0 2 F
. 3 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 3

- 6 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )
. F igueras b riefly arg u es tha t he r c a se c o m es un d er th e ru le laid ou t in S u b h a n v . A sh c ro

ft, 383 F. 3d 591 ( 7th Cir. 20 0 4 ). Subh a n s t a nd s f or the pr opos i t i on thatwe c an review th e deni al ofa c ont i nua n c e m o t i o n w h e n th a td e n i a l e ffe c t i v e l y n u l l i fi e s t h e a l i e n ’s s t atut or y oppor t uni t y t o a dj us ts t atus . T his jur i s di c t i ona l i s s ue si m ply is not i m plic ated here

. As w e hav e note d, r ather than affi rm the IJ ’ s dec i s i on t o de ny the c ont i nua nc e, the BI A ass um ed thi s den ial w as er ro r and a ddre s s ed the m er i t s of F igu era s’s ap p lication , alb eit w itho u t ad d ressing her ad d iti onal eviden ce . S u bh a n d o es n o t a p p ly in th is si tu a tio n . S ee, e. g., G arci a-C asi an o v. M u kasey, 258 F . A pp ’ x. 30, 32 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (ho lding thata c ase does not f all w ithin the Subhan exc epti on ifthe BIA acknow le dg es err or by the IJ and d eci des the case on d ifferen t g ro u nd s). T ha t is, w e ha v e the m erits

— not the pr op riety ofa c ont i nua nc e dec i s i on

— b efore u s on this p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w. ofthe IJ, we re vi ew the BIA’s superce ding op in ion o nl y. 3 M o a b v. G o nz a les , 500 F.3d 656 , 659 (7th C ir. 2007). N ext, Fi guer as ar gues that the BI A vi ol ate d her du eproce ss ri ght t o a f ai r hearing byr efusi ng to co nsi der h er ad d i t i on al e vid en c e o n ap p ea l. W e h av e re p ea te d ly s t a t e d , h o we v e r, th a ts t a t u t o r y c l a i ms s h o u l d c o me be f o r e co ns ti tu ti o na lc l ai m s. Al i en s ha ve a s ta tu to r y r i g ht to a re as on ab le op p or tu n ity to p re se n t e vid en c e in th eir f avo r, 8 U
. S. C. § 1229 a( b) ( 4) , and proc eedi ngs which com ply w i th sta tutory and r egul ato ry re quir em ents also sat i sfy d u e pr oce ss. R ehm a n v . Go nz a les , 44 1 F
. 3d 506, 50 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. “W e hav e ca uti oned ag ai nst ‘ l eadi ng withN o. 08

- 3367 7

an o pen-e nd ed due process ar gum ent’ and advi sed that

‘ [ a] l i en s sh o ul d st i ck wi th cl ai m s ba se d o n the s ta tu te s an d re gul ati ons u n less theybel i eve thato ne o fthes e r ule s vi ol ate d the C onst i tuti on or that l acunae i n the rul es have b ee n filled w ith d efe c tiv e p ro c ed u re s.’ ” Pr ons iva k ul ch ai v. G o nz a les , 4 61 F. 3d 9 03 , 9 07( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( quo ting Reh m an , 441 F.3d at 509 ). T he prop er i nq uiry

— an d the one w e un d ert ake h ere

— i s whether the BI A vi ol ate d Fi guer as’ s s tatutor y r i ght t o a r eas on ab le o pp or tuni ty to p re se n t ev id en c e inh er r em ov al p ro c ee d in g. See 8 U. S
. C. § 1229 a(b)(4)

. T he qu estion w he th er the B I A viol ated this s tatu tory ri ght i s a questi on o fl aw thatwe have juri sdic ti on t o re vi ew . 8 U .S.C . § 12 52( a) ( 2) ( D). H er e, the BIA dism i sse d Fi guer as’ s a pp eali nstea d of eit her re m anding the c ase to the IJ to co nsi der he r add i ti onal evidence ofel i gibi l i ty or r ul i ngo n h era l te r na ti ve theory as a matt ero fl aw. The BIA j usti fi ed i ts dism i ssa l by sta ti ng that Fi guer as did not p re se n t th is evid en c e to th e IJ an d th at th e a p p l i c ab le re gul ati ons bar the BIA fro m consi deri ng ne w ev i dence on ap p ea l. See 8 C
. F.R. § 1003
. 1(d )( 3)(i v). I t i s true tha t th e r el ev an t r egulati o ns pr o hibi t th e BIA fr om enga gi ng i n f act- fi nd i ng o n appeal, but they als o giv e t h e B o a r d au th or ity to rem an d a c as e t o th e IJ if add i ti onalf act- fi nd i ng i s nec ess ar y. Id. H er e, t h e B IA bega n i ts anal ysi s by a ss u m i ng tha t the IJ had abused hi s di scr eti on byr efusi ng to c onsiderFi guer as’ s m oti on f ora continuance. Fi guer as needed the e xtra ti m e t o gather evi dence ofthe al ternati ve gr ou nd f orher elig ibilit y t o a dj u st st at u s. H av in g a ss u m ed th at th e IJ8 N o. 08

- 3367 had w ro ngfully r efused to g i ve Fi guer as m or e t i m e t o c olle c t t h is d oc u m en ta tio n, th e B IA co u ld n otth en fau lt Fig u er as for fa i l i n g t o s u b m it a ll he r ev id en c e t o th e IJ i n the fi r stpl ac e. Ra th ertha n s i m pl y d ismi ss i ngthe appeal, the BIA shoul d have e i therr em anded the cas e t o a l l o w the IJ to co ns i de r the a ddi t i o na le v i de nc e o r a ddress ed heral te rnati ve gr ound fo r el i gibi l i ty as a m att er o fl a w. The g o v e r nme nta r g ue s tha tr e man d wa s i na ppro pri ate bec ause Fi guer as neverfi l ed a m oti on t o re m and or re op en th e p ro c ee d in g s b e f o re th e IJ. See 8 C. F
. R. § 1 003. 1( d)( 3) (iv) ( a par ty re questi ng addit i onalf actfi nd i ng “ m ust file a m ot ion for r e m a n d ”) (e m p h as is ad d ed)

. As we ha ve no te d, ho wev er, the BI A al so ha s th e author i ty to re m and a case sua sponte i f furtherf actfi nd i ng i s nec ess ar y. Id. ( “I f fu rt h erf actfi nd i ng i s nee ded i n a p ar ti cul arcas e, the Board m ay re m and the pro

ceedi n g t o the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge . . . . ”)
. The pro per re m edy fo r the a ssum ed er ro r w as to re m and the ca se to p er m it Fig u er as to p re se n t h er ev id en c e t o th e IJ in the fi rs t in stance. A l ternati vel y, the BIA coul d have addr es se d, a s a m at te r o fl aw, Fi gu er as ’ s adj us tment applica tion und erherpro posed al ternati ve theo ryo f el i g ibi l i tytha t hi ng ed o n Da ni l o Figuer as ’ s st atus . The BIA’s f ai l ure to do ei therwas er ro neous. The go vern m en t a l so ar gues that Fi guer as f or fei ted her ar gum ent c oncerni ng herel i gibi l i ty to ad j ust thro ugh D an ilo F i g u e r as by failin g t o d ev elo p it su fficie n tly . I t is tr ue tha t F i g ue r as g av e th i s ar g um en t r athe r c ur sory tr eat m ent in the proce edi n gs befo re the BIA, as w el lasN o. 08

- 3367 9

The B IA noted Fi gueras’ s li m it ed developm ent ofher alt erna- 4 tiv e arg u m en t b u t d id no t d ecid e the ap p eal on t h i s b a sis. Rathe r, atthe e nd ofi t s opi ni on, the BI A w ro t e: “More ove r, the re sp o n d en ts im p lic itl y a r g u e, w i t ho uta ny ci t a t i o n t o s upp o r t i ng l ega l aut hor ity, tha t a lead ap p lican t f or ad justm en t of status, w h o i s o th e r w i s e i n e l i g ib l e f o r a d j u s t me n t
. . . ma y b e c o me el i gibl e . . . be c aus e a de ri vat i ve appl i c antf or adj us t m en tof s t atus i s al l eg edl y th e der i vat i ve ben efi c i ar y ofanadj us t m en t a p p lic a tio n file d o n h is fa th er ’s b eh a lf.” (E m p h a sis ad d ed .) The BI A t he n di s m i ssed the a ppea l withoutfur the r di s c us s i on or analys is ofthe i ss ue. b efo re th is c ou rt . Sh e h as n otfu lly ex p lai n e d h ow sh e is elig ible b as ed on h er h u sb an d ’s “gr an d fat h er ed ” b e n e ficiary statu s. H ow ever, the B I A dism issed Fi gu eras’s appe alno t be ca us e sh e ha d f ai led to dev el o p thi s ar g um en t o n ap p ea l bu t b ec au se sh e h ad n otp ro d u c ed ev ide nce t o supp or t i t be f or e the IJ
. That s he di d not do so 4 w as att ributabl e t o the IJ ’ s e rr ori n dis rega rd i ng her m o ti o n fo r a co nt i nua nc e an d de emi nghe r a dj us tment appl i ca ti o n aba ndo ned. Acco r di ng l y, we th i nkthe d ecision to acce p t or rej ect Figue ras’s alternative th e o ry that she a nd herf am ily ar e e l i gibl e foradj ustm ent o f sta tus s houl d be m ade b y the ag ency i n the fi rs t instance , o n a n a pp r o pr i a t e r e c o r d. I n additi on t o showing er ro r, howe ver, Fi guer as m ust als o sh ow p r eju d ice
. Reh m an, 44 1 F
. 3d at 509. As o ur d isc u ss ion th u s fa r m ak es cle ar , Fig u e r a s w as ob vio u sly h in d er ed bythe BIA’s re fusalto ei therr em and the ca se to allow the IJ to co nsi der he r add i ti onalev i dence of el i gibi l i ty orr ule o n h er a l ternati ve theo ryas a m att er10 N o. 08

- 3367 of l aw . A s it stan d s, it i s un clear w he th er Fi gu eras’s a d d itiona l evid en ce w ou ld esta bli sh to the agen cy’s sat i sf acti on that s he i s e l igibl e foradj ustm ent o fst atus. H o wev er, o nc e th e BI A as su m ed er r or on th e pa r t o fthe IJ i n disr ega rdi ng the m oti on f or a continuanc e, Fi guer as w as entitled to have ei therthe IJ o r the BI A as ses s her alt er n at ive th e o r y of elig ibilit y on th e m er its . I f th e IJ ha d r ec ei ve d an d co ns i der ed he r addi ti o na l ev i den ce , he m ayha ve f o und h ere l i g ibl e f o r a dj us tmento fs tatus , a nd th e re st o fth e fa m ily alo n g w ith h er . Se eBoyani vs kyy v. G o nz a les , 4 50 F
. 3d 28 6, 2 94 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. Li kew ise , i fthe BIA had consi dered herpro ffer ed al ternati ve basi s for eli gibil ity, i t m ay ha ve h eld th at sh e h a d a viable th eory and rem anded to the IJ f orfurthe r fact-fi nd i ng. True, the BI A m i ght ha ve deter m i ned that the a dd i ti onalev id en ce was insuffi ci ent, as a m att ero fl aw , to r ender Fi guer as e li gibl e foradj ustm ent o fst atus. Ei therway, Fig u er as w a s e n t itle d to h av e e ith er th e IJ or th e B IA rul e o n the mer i ts o fhe r a l te r na ti ve the o r y o fa dj us tment el i gibi l i ty. A ccor dingl y, we G RANTth e p e t i ti o n f o r r e v i e w, V A CA TE the BI A’ s de c i s i o n, a nd R EMA ND f orfurther proce edi ngs.

7- 27- 09