NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 09- 2582 MA RI A C ON TL A,

Peti ti on er v . ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Re s ponde nt On Pe t i t i on for

Re vi e w fr om

an Or de r of the B o ardo f Imm ig ratio nA p p eals ( BI A- 1 : A078- 705- 742) Im m igrati on Judg e: Ho n. An nie S. Gar cy ) Su bm itte d P ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

June 22, 2010 BE FO RE : SMITH , FISHE R and CO WEN, Circ uit Jud ges

( Fi l e d: Jul y

8, 2010) OP I NI ON CO WEN, Circ uit Jud ge. Mar i aCont l a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of Me xi c o, pe t i t i ons thi s Court t o r e vi e w the deci si on of

the Board of

Im m igrati on Ap peal s ( “BIA”) affirm ing the denial of Co ntla ’sC ont l a’ s hus band, al s o a ci t i zen of M exi co w ho ent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es w i t hout 1 i ns pect i on, w as gr ant ed vol unt ar y depar t ur e. H e l eft t he U ni t ed St at es i n J une 2007 p u rsu a n t to th a t o rd e r a n d sin c e th a t ti m e C o n tla h a s ra ise d h e r c h ild re n a s a sin g le p a re n t. 2 m otion f or a c on ti nu ance by

the I mm igrati on Judg e ( “I J” ). We will grant Con tl a’ s pe t i t i on and r e m and the c a s e for a ddi t i ona l pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt wi th thi s opi ni on. I . BA CK GR OU ND Co ntla ente re d this c ou ntry

in Marc h 1 99 1 w it

ho ut inspec ti on . She is the m other of thr e e m i nor

c hi l dr e n, a l l of whom

ar e c i t i z e ns of the Uni t e d St a t e s . On Se pt e m be r 29, 2 0 0 6 , C o n tla receiv eda N o tice to A p p ear, ch arg in g h er as remov ab le f o r b ein g p resen t in th e U n itedS tates w ith o u t h av in g b een ad m ittedo r p aro led , in v io latio n o f I.N .A . § 212( a ) ( 6) ( A) ( i ) , and 8 U. S. C. § 1182( a ) ( 6) ( A) ( i ) . She fi l e d ape t i t i on s e e ki ng cancel lati on of

re m ov al un der 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9b (b)( 1), a ss erti ng that she had been ph y si ca ll y

pres ent i n the Un it ed Stat es fo r m ore than eightee n y ears and that her re m ov al
w o u ldcau se ex trem e h ard sh ip to h er th ree m in o r ch ild ren . A ltern ativ ely , C o n tla 1 p etitio n edf

o r v o lu n tary

d ep artu re. Th e I J c on du ct ed an init ia l r em ov al proceedi ng on June 19 , 200 7. Th e I J a djourne d the pr oc e e di ng unt i l Apr i l 24, 2008, t o gi ve Cont l aand he r pr i or c ouns e l the opport uni ty t o pr e par e the i r

c a s e . The I Jor de r e d the part i e s t o s ubm i t the i r e vi de nc e by Marc h 2 0, 20 08 . I n ear ly 20 08 , Con tl a andher c hildre n m ov ed se vera l t im es un ti l t hey s e c ur e d pe rm ane nt

hous i ng. On Mar c h 13, 2008, Cont l avi s i t e d the offi c e of he r pr i or coun se l t o g ive him

her new address and to inq uire as to the e vidence nece ss ar y fo r her3

case. A t th e co n clu sio n o f th is m eetin g , it w as h er u n d erstan d in g th at h er atto rn ey w o u ld upda t e the I Jwi th he r

c hange of a ddr e s s and woul d c ont a c t Cont l aby

m a i l t o pr e par e for the forthcom ing rem ov al proceedi ng . There was no f urther comm un ic at ion b etween C o n tla an dh er co u n sel b ef o re th at p ro ceed in g . C o n tla an dh er atto rn ey f ailedto sub m it any evidence to the I J by

the Mar ch 20 , 200 8, deadli ne. Co ntla and h er coun se l a

pp eare d b efore the IJat

the April 24 , 200 8, re m ov al proceedi ng . She brou gh t one se t of o ri ginal docum ents to the proce eding. Her attorney had n ot re viewed thes e docum ents befo re the hea ri ng and n ei ther

she nor her attorney ha d the r e qui s i t e thr e e s e t s of c opi e s . He r a tt or ne y i ndi c a t e d tha t

the y m i s s e d the deadli ne du e t o a m is un ders tand ing. He st at ed that he atte m pted to ca ll Co ntla

bu t her te le ph on e num

bers were disc on nect ed. He a ls o state d that he did no t att em pt to contac t h er b y m ail at h er n ew ad d ress. H er atto rn ey req u esteda co n tin u an ce to en ab le h im to r e vi e w the doc um e nt s wi th he r and t o s ubm i t

the r e qui s i t e thr e e s e t s . The gove rnm e nt o p p o sedth e req u est. The I Jque s t i one d Cont l aand he r c ouns e l a s t o why

the y fa i l e d t o s ubm i t

the e vi de nc e . I n i s s ui ng an or a l de c i s i on, the I Jc onc l ude d tha t Cont l awa s a t

faul t for the d elay b ecau se sh e f

ailedto g iv e h er atto rn ey h er cellu lar telep h o n e n u m b er an df ailedto c ont a c t he r a tt orne y whe n s he di d not

he ar fr om hi m by m a i l . The I Jc onc l ude d tha t the
m i s unde r s t andi ng be twe e n Cont l aand c ouns e l di d not c ons t i t ut e good c aus e a s s he cau sedth e d elay . T h e IJ f u rth er in d icatedth at g ran tin g th e ad j o u rn m en t w o u ldb e f

u tile4

beca use, despit e Con tl a’ s r equest fo r t im e t o m ee t wit

h h er attorney , the IJbeli eved that Co ntla ’s cond uct dem on strate d that s he wo uld n ot pu rs ue any such m ee ti ng with her atto rn ey . T h e IJ d en iedth e req u est f o r ad j o u rn m en t. T h e IJ g av e C o n tla th e o p p o rtu n ity to te st ify in supp ort of h er

peti ti on fo r c ance ll at ion o f rem ov al . Con tl a, ho wever, decl ined becaus e s he and h er attorney had n ot had the op po rt

un it y to prepar e. Th e I J the n de ni e d he r

pe t i t i on for

fa i l ur e t o pr e s e nt

any e vi de nc e , but

gr ant e d he r

pe t i t i on for
v o lu n tary d ep artu re. Th e BIA affirm ed the I J i n all re spec ts , i ss uing it s own op inion. Th e BIA ex p lain edth at C o n tla f

ailedto d em o n strate g o o dcau se f o r th e co n tin u an ce an df

ailedto m eet h er b u rd en w ith resp ect to can cellatio n o f rem o v al. I I . DI SCUSSI ON Wh en “th e B IA ad o p ts an daf f irm s th e d ecisio n o f

th e IJ, as w ell as p ro v id es its ow n rea soning fo r i ts deci si on , [we] review[] bo th the dec is ions of the I J andthe BIA.” Has hmiv . At t ’

yGe n. , 531 F. 3d 256, 259 ( 3d Ci r . 2008) . An I J“ m ay gr ant am ot i on for co n tin u an ce f

o r g o o dcau se sh o w n .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 9 . “T h is C o u rt h as j u risd ictio n to re view an IJ ’s deci si on to deny a c on ti nu ance , anddo es so fo r a bu se of disc re ti on .” Ha s hm i , 531 F.3dat

25 9. “[T] he qu es ti on wh ether denia l of a continuance i n an i mm i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ng c ons t i t ut e s an abus e of di s c r e t i on c annot be de c i de d thr ough the ap p licatio n o f

b rig h t-lin e ru les; it m

u st b e reso lv edo n a case b y case b asis acco rd in g to the fac ts and cir cum st ance s of eac h cas e. ” Id . a t 259- 60 ( quot i ng Po nce-

Leiv aB e c a u se w e w ill g ra n t C o n tla’s p e tit io n o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e IJ a b u se d its 2 dis cret i on i n d eny i ng her r equ est for a con t i nu ance, w e decli ne to add res s her due p rocess ch all en g e. W e e x p ress n o o p inion co n ce rnin g the u lt im ate reso luti o n o f th is m att er. 5 v.A sh cro ft , 3 3 1 F .3 d3 6 9 , 3 7 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W e c onc l ude tha t

the I Jabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de nyi ng Cont l a ’ s m ot i on for c ont i nuanc e . The r e c or d s ugge s t s tha t the de l ay i n s ubm i tt i ng e vi de nc e i n s upport of the peti ti on fo r c ance ll at ion o f rem ov al is du e t o a m is un ders tand ing b etween Co ntla and h er prior c ou nsel , which is li kely du e t o a lang uage barri er . The re qu es t for a bri ef continuance, Co ntla ’s firs t, was not un re as on able . At the ti m e of the request , Con tl a’ s c a s e ha d be e n pe ndi ng for l e s s than one y e ar . A br i e f a djournm e nt woul d not

have pr e judi c e d the gove rnm e nt . Mor e ove r , a djournm e nt woul d not

have be e n fut i l e . The reco rdsu g g ests th at C o n tla is p rim a fa cie el igible fo r c ance ll at ion o f rem ov al un der 8 U. S. C. § 1229b( b) ( 1) . She ha s l i ve d i n thi s c ountry for ove r e i ght e e n y e ar s , ha s no cr im inal re cord, andis the s ole financi al supp ort for her three m inor chil dren wh o are citizen s o f

th e U n itedS tates. C o n tla’s p etitio n co u ldh av e b een reso lv edo n its m erits
w ith little d elay . It w as an ab u se o f d iscretio n to d en y

a b rief co n tin u an ce u n d er th ese circu m stan ces. 2 I I I . CONCLUSI ON W e wi l l gr ant

Cont l a ’ s pe t i t i on and r e m and the c a s e for a ddi t i ona l pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt wi th thi s opi ni on.