A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril10,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT A D JE I E D M U N D N T IR I, P eti ti o n er, v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A t t orney G e n e ra l, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 9550 ( N o. A 43 809 788) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , BA LD OCK , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

A dj ei E dm und N t i r i , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G hana, s eeks r evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ s ( B I A ) deni al of hi s appl i cat i on fora w ai verof deport abi l i tyunderform ers ect i on 241( a) ( 1) ( H ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N a tio n a lityA c t (IN A ). W e D IS M IS S th e p e tit io n in p a rt a n d D E N Y it i n p a rt.M r. N tiri pr e v io u slya rg u e d th a t h e w a s n o t leg a llym a rrie d o r le g a lly 1 recogn i zed as t he fa ther of h i s chi l dren atthe ti m e he ap pli ed fo r hi s vi sa becau se he had notcompl et ed the var i ous s t eps i n hi s peopl e’ s cus t om arym arr i age p ro c e s s a n d h a d n o t h a d th e m a rr ia g e re g is te re d w ith th e G h a n ia n g o v e rn m e n t. H e has s i nce c oncede d thathi s vi s a s t at ement s abouthi s m arr i age a nd chi l dr en w er e i ncorr ect , and w e pr ocee d underthatconce s s i on. -2- I. M r. N t i ri ’s fat her, then a l egal perm anen tres i den tof the U nit ed S t at es, so u g h t a relat ive v isa fo r M r. N ti ri as h is un m arried s o n . W h en M r. N ti ri compl et ed hi s vi s a appl i cat i on, he i nform ed the U ni t ed St at es governm entthathe w as unm arr i ed and he had no chi l dr en eve n though he w as m arr i ed w i th thr ee c h ild re n . A f

terh e e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s, h e so u g h t to b rin g h is fa m ilyto th is 1 country , and the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Servi ce ( I N S) det erm i ned thathe h a d m isre p re se n ted h is fa m ili a l sta tu s o n h is v isa a p p lica tio n . H e w a s s e rv e d w ith an O r dert o Show C aus e on O ct ober31, 1996. A ft erhol di ng tw o hear i ngs , an im m ig ra tio n ju d g e (I J ) o rd e re d h im d e p o rt e d . D u rin g th e c o u rse o f

th e im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s, M r. N tiri div o rc e d h is G h a n ian w ife a n d m a rrie d a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n . T h e B IA re m a n d e d h is c a se to all o w h im to se ek a w aive r of d ep o rt ab il ityu n d er fo rm er IN A § 2 4 1 (a)(1)(H ), form er l ycodi fi ed at8 U . S. C . § 1251( a) ( 1) ( H ) ( now I N A § 237( a) ( 1) ( H ) , codi fi ed at8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( H ) ) . A ft erhol di ng anotherhear i ng, the I J deni ed the w ai verof deport abi l i ty . T he B I A aff i rm ed, and M r . N t i r i t i m el yfi l ed hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew of the age ncy ’ s deci s i on.-3- II. W e m u st fir st an aly ze the s co p e o f o u r rev iew in this m att er. M r. N ti ri arg u es th at th e jurisdicti o n -stri p p ing p rov isi o n s o f th e Ill eg al Im m igrati o n R efo rm and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996 ( I I R I R A ) , Pub. L . N o. 104- 208, 110 St at . 3009, and the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 St at . 231, do notpr ecl ude us fr om cons i der i ng hi s pet i t i on, beca us e hi s i s a tr ans i t i onal rul es c a se . T h e g o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s th a t § 1 0 6 (d ) o f th e R E A L ID A c t re q u ire s u s to tr eatthi s cas e as i f i thad bee n fi l ed under8 U . S. C . § 1252, as amended bythe R E A L I D A c t , a n d th u s th e j u r i s d i c t i o n - s tr i p p i n g p r o v i s i o n s d o a p p l y. M r . N t i r i ’ s deport at i on pr ocee di ngs comm ence d on O ct ober31, 1996, b e fo r e I I RI RA ’ s e ffe c t i v e d a t e . Co n s e q u e n t l y , u n t i l th e e n a c tme n to f th e RE AL I D Ac ti n M a y2 0 0 5 , M r . Nt i r i ’ s c a s e wo u l d h a v e b e e n h a n d l e d u n d e rp r e - I I RI RA la w a s a m e n d e d b yth e tr a n s itio n a l ru le s . Se e Be lay - Ge b r u v . I NS , 327 F. 3d 998, 10 00 n. 3 (10th C i r. 20 03 ). S ect i on 10 6(d) of the R E A L ID A ct , ho w ever, st at es: T R A N SI T I O N A L R U L E C A SE S. – A pet i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed under fo rm e r se c tio n 1 0 6 (a ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t (a s in effectbefor e i t s r epea l bys ect i on 306( b) of the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996 ( 8 U . S. C . 1252 not e) ) s hal l be tr eat ed as i f i thad bee n fi l ed as a pet i t i on forr evi ew u n d e rs e c t i o n 2 4 2 o f

th e I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i tyAc t( 8 U. S . C. 1252) , as amended bythi s s ect i on. 119 St at . 311. “Thus, underthe R E A L I D A ct , tr ans i t i onal rul es cas es ar e now s ubj ectt o the j ur i s di ct i onal rul es curr ent l ycodi fi ed i n 8 U . S. C . § 1252. ” O ni koyi v. G onz al es , 4 5 4 F .3 d 1 , 3 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); s ee als o E l i a v. G onz al es , 431 F. 3d-4-

2 6 8 , 2 7 2 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer tdeni ed , 1 2 6 S . Ct . 2 0 1 9 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . Co n s e q u e n t l y , we r evi ew M r . N t i r i ’ s cl ai m s us i ng the curr entpr ovi s i ons of § 1252 r atherthan II R IR A ’s transi t i on al rul es. III . M r . N t i r i chal l enges the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s r eques tfora w ai verof d ep o rt ab il ityu n d er fo rm er IN A § 2 4 1 (a)(1)(H ). H e f u rth er a rgu es th at th e B IA d e n ied h im d u e p ro c e ss o f law a n d a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it (1 ) d e c lin e d to r emand t he mat t ert o al l ow hi m t o s eek a dj us tm entof s t atus bas ed on hi s m arr i age to a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n , an d (2 ) n e g lec ted to a d d re ss h is re q u e st fo r a re m a n d to d e ter m in e h is e lig ib ili tyfo r c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l. B e c a u se th e B IA a ffirm e d in a s h o rt(b u t n o t s u m m a ry) d e c is io n , w e p ri m a ri ly re v ie w th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . Sa rr v. G onz al es , 474 F. 3d 783, 790 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . T o the ext entthe B I A adopt ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n , h o w ev er, w e m ayloo k to the IJ’s de cisi o n as n ec essa ryfo r a

“ m o re c o m p le te e x p la n a tio n ” o f th e re a s o n s u n d e rl y in g th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . Id. (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A. W hethert o gr anta w ai verunderform erI N A § 241( a) ( 1) ( H ) i s a mat t er e x p lic itly c o m m itte d to th e d is c re tio n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. See 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 1 (a )(1 )(H ) (1 9 9 5 ); s ee als o i d. § 1227( a) ( 1) ( H ) ( 2006) . Sect i on 1252 gener al l ypr ecl udes us fr om r evi ew i ng a “de ci s i on oract i on of the A t t orney G ener al . . . the author i tyforw hi ch i s s peci fi ed underthi s s ubchapt ert o be i n the-5-

di s cr et i on of the A t t orneyG ener al . ” Id. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) . A ccor di ngl y , i f the ag en cy ’s de n ial o f a w aive r of d ep o rt ab il ityis ba sed o n a d iscreti o n ary d e t e rmi n a t i o n , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m a d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g s t a tu t o rye l i g i b i l i ty , we la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w it. See Si ngh v. G onz al es , 451 F. 3d 400, 410- 11 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Sa n P e dro v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 5 F . 3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 5 7 -58 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). C o n tra ryto M r. N tiri’s a rg u m e n ts, it i s a p p a re n t th a t th e a g e n c yd e n ied h im a w a iv e r a s a m a tte r o f d is c re tio n , n o t b e c a u s e it fo u n d h im s ta tu to ri ly in e lig ib le . A dm i n. R . at2 ( “W e agr ee w i th the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s concl us i on thatthe re sp o n d e n t d o e s n o t m e rit a w a iv e r in th e e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n .”). T h u s, w ith o n e e x c e p tio n , w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e a g e n c y ’s d e n ia l o f th e w a iv e r. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(ii); Si ngh , 4 5 1 F .3 d a t 4 1 1 ; Sa n P edro , 395 F. 3d at 1157- 58. T he exc ept i on i s thatw e r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal claim s o r qu esti o n s o f law . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ). M o st of M r. N ti ri ’s ar gum ent s conce rni ng the age ncy ’ s deni al of the w ai verdo noti nvoke anys uch ques t i ons ; r ather , beca us e theypr i m ar i l yfocus on the age ncy ’ s w ei ghi ng of the ev iden ce , theyare the typ e o f “ ch all en g es d ir ec ted s o lel yat th e a g en cy ’s di s cr et i onaryand fa ctual det erm i nat i ons [that ] r emai n out s i de the s cope of j udi ci al r evi ew . ” D i al l o v. G onz al es , 4 4 7 F. 3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 8 1 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . To the ext entthathe i m pl i ci t l yi nvokes a cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s cl ai m byar gui ng thatthe I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs w er e i ns uffi ci entforr evi ew bythe B I A , w e fi nd no m er i ti n hi s cont ent i ons . T he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e ade quat e t o al l ow r evi ew of theT he B I A char act er i zed i t s deni al of the r emand m ot i on as a mat t erof 2 di s cr et i on. A dm i n. R . at3. I t s expl anat i on, how ever , i ndi cat es thati tfound that M r . N t i r i had notm etthe r equi r ement s of Valar de- P achec o . Id. C o n s e q u e n t l y, w e appr oach thi s i s s ue as a deni al forl ack of el i gi bi l i tyr atherthan a de ni al i n the exer ci s e of di s cr et i on. -6- d e c isio n . A c c o rd in g ly , w ith re g a rd to th is a rg u m e n t th e p e tit io n is d ism iss e d in p a rt a n d d e n ied in p a rt. B. M r . N t i r i furtherar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdeni ed h is m o tio n fo r a re m a n d to a llo w h im to se e ka dju stm e n t o f sta tu s b a se d o n h is m arr i age t o a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. H e cont ends thathe s at i s fi ed al l of the r equi r ement s fora r emand se tforth i n the B I A ’ s deci s i on i n In re Valar de- P achec o , 2 3 I. & N . D ec . 2 5 3 (B IA 2 0 0 2 ), an d co n seq u en tl ythe B IA ’s fai l ure t o fo l l ow i t s ow n p recedent and rem and the case d enied hi m du e process. T h e B IA tre a ts a m o tio n to re m a n d e ss e n tiallyth e sa m e a s a m o tio n to re o p e n . In re L -V-K , 22 I . & N . D ec. 976, 978 ( B I A 1999) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen, atl eas tw her e j udi ci al r evi ew of the u n d e rl y in g o rd e r i s n o t p re c lu d e d . In fa n zo n v . A sh c ro

ft , 386 F. 3d 1359, 1361- 62 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . O urr evi ew i s forabus e of di s cr et i on, w hi ch occ ur s w hen “[ the B I A ’ s ] deci s i on pr ovi des no r at i onal expl anat i on, i nexpl i cabl ydepart s fr om es t abl i s hed pol i ci es , i s devoi d of anyr eas oni ng, orcont ai ns onl ys um m aryor concl us orys t at ement s . ” Id. at 13 6 2 (qu o tat ion o m itted). 2-7-

T o q u a lifyfo r a dju stm e n t o f sta tu s, “ a n a lien m u st a p p lyfo r a dju stm e n t, es t abl i s h thathe i s el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve an i m m i gr antvi s a and i s admi s s i bl e t o the U n ited S tate s fo r p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e , an d sh o w th a t an im m ig ra n t v isa is im m e d iate lya v a ilab le to h im atthe t i m e hi s appl i cat i on i s fi l ed. ” Mat t erof A r thur , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . 4 7 5 , 4 7 6 (B IA 1 9 9 2 ). Valar de- P achec o , h o w ev er, es t abl i s hes an exc ept i on t o thi s gener al rul e. I f Valar de- P achec o ’ s fi ve condi t i ons ar e met , a mot i on t o r eopen t o pur s ue an a dj us tm entm aybe gr ant ed even i f a vi s a i s noti m m edi at el yavai l abl e t o an al i en: W e conc l ude thata pr oper l yfi l ed mot i on t o r eopen maybe gr ant ed, in th e e x e rc ise o f

d isc re tio n , to p ro v id e a n a lien a n o p p o rtu n ityto p u rsue an ap p li ca ti o n fo r adjustm en t w h ere the fo ll o w ing fa ctors a re pr es ent : ( 1) the mot i on i s t i m el yfi l ed; ( 2) the mot i on i s not num er i cal l ybarr ed bythe r egul at i ons ; ( 3) the mot i on i s notbarr ed by Mat t erof

Shaar , 21 I & N D ec. 541 ( B I A 1996) , oron anyother pr ocedur al gr ounds ; ( 4) the mot i on pr es ent s cl earand convi nci ng ev iden ce ind icati n g a stron g li k eli h o o d that the re sp o n d en t’ s m arr i age i s bona fi de; and ( 5) the Servi ce e i therdoes notoppos e the m ot i on orbas es i t s oppos i t i on s ol el yon Mat t erof A r thur . Valar de- P achec o , 2 3 I. & N . D e c . a t 2 5 6 . T h e B IA e x p lain e d w h yit d e n ied M r. N tiri’s m o tio n . C o n tra ryto M r . N t i r i ’ s ar gum entbefor e thi s court , he fa i l ed t o s how al l fi ve Valar de- P achec o fa c to rs. A d m in . R . at 3 . P a rticu lar ly , the D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity oppos ed the r emand on a gr ound otherthan Mat t erof A r thur . Id. C o n s e q u e n t l y, Valar de- P achec o d id n o t au th o riz e a re m a n d o f th e c a se , an d th e B IA d id n o t fa il to fo ll o w it s p rec ed en t i n d en y ing the re q u ested rem an d . Itfo ll o w s tha t th e B IAE ven i f M r . N t i r i had pr es ent ed thi s ar gum entt o the B I A , w e w oul d not 3 fin d a v iolati o n o f d u e p roc ess. T o p roc ee d w ith a d u e p roc ess c lai m , M r. N ti ri m u st s h o w h e su ffe re d p reju d ice a s a re su lt o f th e B IA ’s fa ilu re to a d d re ss h is re q u e st. Se e D u ra n -He rn a n d ez v . A sh c ro ft , 3 4 8 F . 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 2 -63 (10 th C ir . 20 03 ). M r. N t i ri suffered n o p rej ud i ce from the B IA ’s l ack o f dis cussi on becau se he i s notel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval . H e w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs onl ytw o y ear s aft erhe ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es , s o as a mat t erof l aw he coul d notacc rue the r equi r ed numberof y ear s of phy s i cal pr es ence i n the U n ite d S ta te s to b e c o m e e lig ib le fo r t h a t r e lie f. See 8 U . S. C . §§ 1229b( a) ( 2) (req u ir ing sev en y ea rs’ pres en ce ), 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(A ) (r eq u ir ing ten y ea rs’ pres en ce ), 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ) (p ro v id in g th a t a p e rio d o f c o n tin u o u s p re se n c e e n d s w h e n a n a lien is se rv e d a n o tice to a p p e a r); S i b a n da v . I NS , 2 8 2 F . 3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 4 -35 (10 th C ir . (c o n tin u e d ...) -8- di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on and ther e i s no gr ound fora due p ro c e s s a rg u m e n t. W ith re g a rd to th is a rg u m e n t, th e p e titio n is d e n ie d . C. Fi nal l y , M r . N t i r i cont ends thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on and deni ed h im d u e p ro c e ss w h e n it fa iled to a d d re ss h is re q u e st fo r a re m a n d fo r th e IJ to cons i derhi s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval . I tappea r s thathe cha l l enges n o t th e B IA ’s fa ilu re to re m a n d , b u t its fa ilu re e v e n to ru le o n h is re q u e s t. T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t sh o w th a t M r. N tiri ev e r m a d e th e B IA a w a re o f its fai l i ng orotherw i s e pr es ent ed thi s ar gum entt o the B I A . C ons equent l y , he has not e x h a u ste d h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies , an d w e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to c o n s id e r t h e a rg u m e n t. See G alvezP i neda v. G onz al es , 427 F. 3d 833, 837 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( obs ervi ng thata “[ f] ai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es by notfi r s tpr es ent i ng a cl ai m t o the B I A depr i ves thi s courtof j ur i s di ct i on t o hear i t ”) . W i th r egar d t o thi s ar gum ent , the pet i t i on i s di s m i s s ed. 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 2 0 0 2 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t IIR IR A ’s “ sto p -tim e ” p ro v isio n a p p lies e v e n to p re-IIR IR A ca ses). -9- I V. T h e p e tit io n fo r re v iew is D IS M IS S E D in p a rt a n d D E N IE D in p a rt.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge