2008 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 9-17-2008 

# Ja ck o 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 . 06-3945

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " J a cko v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 532. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/532NOT 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. 06- 3945 M I RO S L AV J AC KO,

Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e s p o n d e n t O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 75- 459- 723 ( U . S . I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e : H o n o r a b l e R o s a l i n d K . M a l l o y) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay5, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , B A R R Y a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: Sept ember17, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . M i r os l av J acko pe t i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal deci s i on of 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 w i thoutopi ni on the dec i s i on of an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) i nW e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. 1 2 r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m . J acko a l l eges the I J abus ed herdi s cr et i on bydeny i ng Ja c k o ’s r e q u e st 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 n d th a t th e B IA e rre d in i s s ui ng an af

fi r m ance w i thoutopi ni on ( A W O ) of the I J ’ s rul i ng. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. 1 I. J acko a r r i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es fr om the Sl ovak R epubl i c i n 1997 on a noni m m i gr antvi s i t orvi s a. O n O ct ober10, 2001, the I N S com m ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m forover s t ay i ng hi s vi s a. A ft eran i ni t i al 90- daycont i nuance of hi s r emoval hear i ng, J acko r eques t ed a s econd c ont i nuance on M ar ch 5, 2002, s o thathe coul d att empt t o adj us thi s i m m i gr at i on s t atus i n acc or dance w i th the pr ocedur es of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( I N A ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1255. H e cl ai m ed t o have a n A l i en Em pl oym ent C ert i fi cat i on ( E T A - 750) pendi ng w i th the D epart m entof Labor( D O L ) and the I J gr ant ed h is co n ti n u an ce . Jac k o ’s rem o v al pro ce ed ing s w ere su b seq u en tl yco n ti n u ed three m o re t i m es w hi l e he w ai t ed forD O L t o pr oces s hi s empl oym entcert i fi cat i on. A ta hea r i ng on February3, 2004, J acko c l ai m ed thathi s empl oym entcert i fi cat i on had bee n appr oved and he had f i l ed an I - 140 vi s a pet i t i on w i th the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( D H S) , t he nexts t ep i n havi ng hi s i m m i gr at i on s t atus adj us t ed under§ 1255. A s i xth cont i nuance w as gr ant ed t o al l ow D H S t o pr oces s the I - 140 pet i t i on. A ta hea r i ng on February1, 2005, J acko c oncede d hi s I - 140 pet i t i on had bee n deni ed byD H S and hi s appea l of the3

deni al w as pendi ng. T he I J r efus ed t o gr anthi m a furthercont i nuance pendi ng the r es ol ut i on of hi s appea l and ent er ed a r emoval or der . J acko appeal ed the or dert o the B IA , c o n te n d in g th e IJ h a d a b u s e d h e r d is c re tio n b yd e n y in g h im a f u rt h e r c o n tin u a n c e . O n J u ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , th e B IA a f f ir m e d th e IJ ’s o rd e r w ith o u t o p in io n . T h e issu e is w h ethe r th e IJ a b u sed h er d iscreti o n b yd en y ing Jac k o ’s req u est fo r a con t i nu ance. Th e regul at i on s i m plem enti ng the IN A best ow such d i scr et i on on the IJ, st at i ng “t he im m i grat i on j ud ge m aygranta m oti on for con t i nu ance f or goo d cau se s how n. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 29. B utJ acko c ont ends an I J s houl d gr anta cont i nuance w hen a n a lien h a s th e p a p e rw o rk f o r a sta tu s a d

ju stm e n t p e n d in g u n d e r § 1 2 5 5 . F o r su p p o rt, Jacko c i t es H

as w anee v . U

S A t t or ney G ener al , 471 F. 3d 1212 ( 11th C i r . 2006) and Su b h a n v . A sh c ro

ft , 383 F. 3d 591 ( 7th C i r . 2004) . I n H as w anee , the E lev e n th C irc u it overturned an i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deni al of a c ont i nuance on the gr ounds thatthe pet i t i onerhad an una dj udi cat ed I - 140 pet i t i on pendi ng befor e D H S atthe t i m e of the cont i nuance r eques t . I n Subhan , the S e v e n th C irc u it ca m e to a sim ilar d e c isio n w ith r es pectt o a pet i t i onerw ho had a c ont i nuance deni ed w hi l e hi s E T A - 750 l abor ce rt ifi ca ti o n w as p en d ing . W e f ind thes e c ase s ina p p o sit e to th e m att er a t han d . Jac k o ’s v isa p eti ti o n h ad b ee n d en ied b yD H S at th e ti m e the IJ de n ied J ac k o ’s req u est fo r a cont i nuance , w her eas i n H as w anee and Subhan admi ni s tr at i ve age nci es had y ett o rul e on the pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i ons w hen theys oughta cont i nuance of thei rr emoval p roc ee d ing s. T h e im p o rt an ce o f th is dist inction is ap p are n t from the S ev en th C ir cu it ’sA l though t he vi s a pet i t i on deni ed i n H as s an w as an I- 13 0 im m ediat e rel at i ve v i sa 2 pet i t i on, the court ’ s fi ndi ng that“[b] eca us e the D i s tr i ctD i r ect orhad al r eadydeni ed the v isa p e tit io n , tha t p e tit io n c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n p rim a f a c ie a p p ro v a b le,” is e q u a lly re le v a n t to a n I- 1 4 0 v is a p e titio n . H as s an , 110 F. 3d 490, 492- 493. 4 r eas oni ng i n Subhan . T hatcourthel d the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatSubhan w as “notel i gi bl e” f or s t atus adj us t m ent“w as nota r eas on fordeny i ng the mot i on fora thi r d cont i nuance , but m er el ya s t at ementof the obvi ous : thatthe l abordepart m ent s hadn’ ty etact ed. ” Subhan , 383 F. 3d at593. A l though J acko a r gues that , l i ke the pet i t i oner s i n Subhan and H as w anee , he i s s i m pl ya vi ct i m of admi ni s tr at i ve del ay , he ca nnotm ake the cl ai m that

“ th e la b o r d e p a rt m e n ts h a d n ’t y e t a c te d ” . W e f in d th is d if

f e re n c e c ru c ia l in e v a lu a tin g w h e th e r t h e IJ a b u s e d h e r d is c re tio n . I n Subhan , the S e v e n th C irc u it w e n t o n to m e n tio n se v e ra l p o ss ib le r e a so n s th a t w o u ld cons t i tut e a va l i d bas i s on w hi ch an I J coul d exer ci s e di s cr et i on t o denya cont i nuance , ci t i ng w i th appr oval i t s ear l i erdeci s i on i n Ha s s a n v . I NS , 1 1 0 F .3 d 4 9 0 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), a ca se in w h ich th e IJ ref

u sed a re q u est fo r a c o n ti n u an ce o n the g rou n d s tha t th e a li en ’s v isa p eti ti o n h ad b ee n d en ied. T h u s, ev en in the ca se Ja ck o reli es o n , the c o u rt 2 a c k n o w le d g e d d e n ia l o f a v is a p e titio n a s a v a lid re a s o n f o r a n IJ to d e n ya c o n tin u a n c e . B IA p re c e d e n t a ls o s u p p o rt s th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e IJ a c te d w ith in h e r d is c re tio n . I n Ma ttero

f G a rc ia , 1 6 I& N D e c . 6 5 3 (B IA 1 9 7 8 ), th e B IA sta ted : [ W ]e b e liev e th a t d isc re tio n sh o u ld , as a g e n e ra l ru le, b e f a v o ra b ly exer ci s ed w hen a pr i m a fa ci e appr ovabl e vi s a pet i t i on . . . ha[s ] been s ubm i t t ed i n t he cour s e of a deport at i on hear i ng . . . I tcl ear l yw oul d notbe a n a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n f

o rth e i m m i g r a t i o n j u d g e t o s u m m a r i l y d e n y a5

r eques tfora cont i nuance ora mot i on t o r eopen upon hi s det erm i nat i on that the vi s a pet i t i on i s fr i vol ous orthatthe adj us t m entappl i cat i on w oul d be d e n ie d . . . . Id . at 65 7 . T h e a b o v e p assa g e sp ea k s to the lat itu d e o f d iscreti o n af fo rde d to the IJ. In this case, the IJ w as not even requ i red t o m ake a d et erm i nati on as t o the m eri t s of t he v i sa pet i t i on, as i tal r eadyhad bee n deni ed w hen s he cons i der ed J acko’ s m ot i on for cont i nuance . I ndeed, i tw oul d be har d t o s ee how a vi s a pet i t i on coul d be cons i der ed p ri m a f a c ie a p p ro v a b le h a v in g b e e n d e n ie d o n c e b yD H S . Ja c k o a lso c o n ten d s th e IJ e rre d in b a sin g h e r d e c isio n to d e n yth e c o n tin u a n c e in parton the dur at i on of the r emoval pr ocee di ngs . J acko a r gues thathe “i s unaw ar e of a ny l a w , r e g u l a t i o n o rp r e c e d e n tw h i c h r e q u i r e s o rg i v e s s p e c i f i c a u th o r i ty t o a n I J t o d e n y a cont i nuance on the bas i s thatthe courtdocketi s t oo ful l , t oo m anycont i nuance s have b e e n g ra n ted o r th a t a c a se h a s b e e n o n th e d o c k e t to o lo n g .” P e tit io n e r’s B r. at 1 2 . T h is ar gum entm i s cons trues 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 29, w hi ch s t at es that“the i m m i gr at i on j udge may gr anta mot i on forcont i nuance forgood caus e s how n. ” The subj ectof r emoval pr ocee di ngs has no i nher entr i ghtt o a cont i nuance , butr atherbear s the bur den of s how i ng good caus e w hya cont i nuance s houl d be gr ant ed. Fur therm or e, J acko’ s I - 140 al r eadyhad been de ni ed byD H S. W e s ee no r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe dur at i on of a r emoval pr ocee di ng i s nota perm i s s i bl e fa ct orforan I J t o cons i deri n connec t i on w i th a pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tfora cont i nuance .6 II. J acko a l s o as s ert s thatthe B I A i m pr oper l yi s s ued an a ffi r m ance w i thoutopi ni on ( A W O ) of the I J ’ s rul i ng. H e ar gues thatthe ci r cumst ance s of hi s cas e do notm eetthe c r i t e r i a f o ra n A WO i n 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 ( e ) ( 4 ) . We d i s a g r e e . J a c k o c o n t e n d s “ th e A WO pr oces s s houl d... neverbe us ed w hen new ar gum ent s ar e r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e i n the appea l t o the boar d. ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at19. B utthe r egul at i on al l ow s the B I A t o i s s ue an A W O as l ong as “the fa ctual and l egal i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al ar e nots o s ubs t ant i al that th e c a s e w a rr a n ts th e is s u a n c e o f a w ri tte n o p in io n in th e c a s e .” 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 4) ( i ) ( B ) . T hatan i s s ue i s new does notm ake i ts ubs t ant i al . J acko c i t es no a u th o rityf

o r h is p o sitio n o n th e A W O , b u t ar g u e s th a t “th e leg a l issu e s a re su b sta n tial in thei rs heervol um e. ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at23. W e do notr ead the r egul at i on as al l ow i ng any part i cul arvol um e of l egal i s s ues t o di s pos i t i vel ydet erm i ne s ubs t ant i al i ty . Such an in te rp re ta tio n w o u ld u n d u ly re s tr ic t th e d is c re tio n o f th e B IA . W e s e e n o e rr o r. II I. F i nall y , Jacko c on t end s the d enial of a c on t i nu ance v i olat es hi s due p rocess ri gh t s, sp ec ifi ca ll y“the IJ’s erron eo u s p roc ed u ral ruli n g (de n ial o f a co n ti n u an ce req u est), pr ecl uded M r . J acko f

r om the opportuni tyt o be hea r d on hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef f r om r emoval . ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at25. A s hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs have e ncompass ed a t ot al of thr ee y ear s , s i x cont i nuance s and s even t ot al hear i ngs , and as w e have found the deni al7

o f a c o n tin u a n c e to b e a p ro p e r e x e rc ise o f th e IJ’ s d isc re tio n , w e c a n n o t ag re e th a t h is fundament al due pr oces s r i ghtt o be hea r d has been i m pai r ed. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.