FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 8, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12636 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 96- 437- 572 N A Z E E R H A S W A N E E , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 8, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The Home land Security Act (“ HSA”), e ffe ctive November 25, 2002, created the 1 Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

(“D HS”) a

nd abolished the I

NS. Pub.L .No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. The HSA transferre d I NS functions to the DHS. This casewas initiated while the I NS was still in ex istence. This opinion, there fore , ref ers to the I

NS rather than the DHS as the re l e v antag en c y. 2 N a z e e rH a s w a ne e pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the de c i s i on of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) di s m i s s i ng H a s w a ne e ’ s appe a l of the I m m i gr a t i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) deni al of a c on t i nu ance and o rderof re m ov al . H as w anee ra i se s tw o i s s ue s . F i r s t , he a r gue s tha tthe I J abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on for acont i nu ance because he had an approv ed l abor cert i fi ca t i on and an i m m edi at el y a vai l abl e vi sanu m ber, and h i s F orm I- 14 0 p et i t i on for a n em pl oym ent -bas ed vi saw as pend i ng . S ec on d, he ar gu es thatthe B IA and IJ d e n ie d h im d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o te c tio n o f th e la w in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to c o n tin u e w h ile h is v is a p e titio n w a s p e n d in g . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th m o r e f

u lly be l ow , w e gr a ntH a s w a ne e ’ s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i n pa r t , va c a t e the de c i s i on of the B IA , an d rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. I . Ba c k g r o und H as w anee , a nat i ve ci t i ze n o f P aki st an, ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es on M ar ch 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 a s a n o n im m ig r a n t v is ito rf o rp le a s u r e w ith a u th o r iz a tio n to r e m a in u n til S e p te m b e r2 1 , 1 9 9 9 , w h ic h tim e w a s e x te n d e d o n e y e a r , u n til S e p te m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 0 . H a s w a ne e , how e ve r , r e m a i ne d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s be y ond tha tda t e , a nd, on M ar ch 6, 20 03 , the form erIm m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) i ss ued 13

h i m a n o t i c e t o ap p e a r( “ NT A” ) , c h a r g i n g h i m wi th r e m o v ab i l i ty u n d e rI NA § 237( a ) ( 1) ( B ) , ( a ) ( 1) ( C ) ( i ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 1) ( B ) , ( a ) ( 1) ( C ) ( i ) , a s a n a l i e n w ho r e m a in e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s lo n g e rth a n p e r m itte d a n d w h o f a ile d to c o m p ly w ith the cond i t i on s of hi s non i m m i grantst atus. T he N T A further c harged that H a s w a ne e ha d be e n e m pl oy e d f orw a ge s orothe rc om pe ns a t i on f r om M a r c h 15, 2000 t o the t i m e of

hi s N T A w i thouta uthor i z a t i on f r om the I N S . O n A pr i l 25, 2001, H a s w a ne e ’ s e m pl oy e rf i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora l i e n e m pl oy m e ntc e r t i f i c a t i on ( “ l aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on” ) on hi s be ha l f

, w hi c h the U ni t e d S t a t e s D e pa r tm e ntof L abor ( “ D O L ” ) c e r t i f

i e d on F e brua ry 18, 2004. I n a ddi t i on the D O L i ns truc t e d tha tthe c e r t i f i c a t i o n m u s tb e a tt a c h e d t o th e I - 1 4 0 p e t i t i o n a n d f i l e d wi th th e I NS . On A pri l 20 , 20 04 , H as w anee ’ s e m pl oyerfi l ed an I- 14 0 i m m i grantpet i t i on for a l i en w or ke ron hi s be ha l f

. T he I N S c onf

i r m e d r e c e i ptof

H a s w a ne e ’ s I - 140 on M a y 5, 2 0 0 4 , a n d in d ic a te d th a t it g e n e r a lly to o k 3 5 0 to 4 0 0 d a y s to p r o c e s s s u c h a c a s e . D uri ng hi s hea ri ng before the IJi n h i s r em ov al proceedi ng s, H as w anee m ov ed t o con t i nu e hi s proce edi ng s unt i l the re sol ut i on of hi s I -140 pet i t i on . T he IJ deni ed H as w anee ’ s m ot i on for acont i nu ance , fi nd i ng that , un l i ke a f am i l y- base d vi s a pe t i t i on, no c a s e l a w e xi s t e d tha tr e qui r e d a c ont i nua nc e ba s e d upon a pe ndi ng e m pl oy m e nt - ba s e d vi s a pe t i t i on. T he I J f ur the rf ound tha tH a s w a ne e ’ s know i ng vi ol a t i on of

the i m m i gr a t i on l a w s c oul d notbe ove r l ooke d, “ a nd, a s a m a tt e rof d iscr etio n , th e [ IJ d id ] n o t fin d th at th e a p p ro v ed lab o r c er t[ificatio n ] [w a]s4

c o m p e llin g e ith e rto g r a n t ac o n tin u a n c e o rto g r a n t v o lu n ta ry d e p a r tu r e .” H a s w a n e e ap p e a le d th e d e c is io n to th e B I A . T h e B I A d is m is s e d h is ap p e a l, a f f i r m i ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny the c ont i nua nc e . I tnot e d tha tH a s w a ne e ’ s I - 140 vi sapet i t i on had n otbeen approv ed as of the dat e of the B IA ’ s dec i si on . T he B IA f u r th e rf o u n d th a t H a s w a n e e h a d n o t e s tab lis h e d th a t h e w a s p r im a f a c ie e lig ib le for a dj ustm entof st atus un der I N A § 2 45 (a ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 5(a) because he w as notthe be ne f

i c i a ry of a n appr ovabl e vi s a pe t i t i on a nd ha d be e n “ outof s t a tus ” f or f a ilin g to r e f

r a in f r o m w o r k in g u n la w f

u lly a n d to le a v e th e U n ite d S ta te s b y h is r e qui r e d da t e . C i t i ng Z a f a rv. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 426 F . 3d 1330 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , the B IA co n clu d ed th at th e I J d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g H as w an ee ’s m ot i on t o con t i nu e, and, further, thatB ul l v. IN S , 79 0 F . 2d 86 9 (11 th C i r. 19 86 ) di d notappl y be c a us e H a s w a ne e di d note s t abl i s h hi s pr i m a f a c i e e l i gi bi l i ty f

or r e lie f . I I . D i s c u s s i on A . C on ti n u an ce H a s w a n e e a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t h e is e lig ib le to a d ju s t h is s ta tu s p u r s u a n t to IN A § 2 45 (i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 5(i ), bu tthatthe IJ ’ s deni al of hi s r equestfor a cont i nu ance and o rderof re m ov al j eopardi ze s hi s e l i gi bi l i ty bec ause , i f he l ea ves the U ni t ed S t at es , he w i l l becom e i nel i gi bl e f or re l i ef . H e c on t ends thatthe B IA devi at ed fr om i t s ow n p ol i ci es and p ri or un pu bl i shed deci si on s, i n w hi ch the B IA5

h ad g ran t ed a co n t i n u an ce i n cases w h ere an I-1 4 0 p et i t i o n w as p en d i n g . H e al so as se rt s thatthe IJ ’ s deni al w as i n d i re ctconfl i ctw i th o ur deci si on i n Z af arbecause, ac cordi ng t o H as w anee , ou r r ea soni ng i n Z af ari s that , w here a pet i t i on erhas a n appr ove d l aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on a nd the r e i s a vi s a i m m e di a t e l y a va i l abl e , the co n t i n u an ce sh o u l d b e g ran t ed . H asw an ee fu rth er arg u es th atth e fact s o f h i s case ar e a nal og ou s t o tho se i n B ul l because pet i t i on er s f or an I- 14 0 em pl oym ent -bas ed vi sathatar e noton a w ai t i ng l i star e a ki n t o p et i t i on er s f or an I- 13 0 fam i l y- base d vi sa . In hi s r epl y bri ef

, he no t es thathi s c as e i s s i m i l art o, and sho ul d b e gov erned by, ou r r ec entdeci si on i n M er chantv. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 1 F . 3d 13 75 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) .A n I J ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nta c ont i nua nc e i n a n i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ng

“ f orgood c a us e s how n. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 29. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the IJ ’ s di sc re t i on ary dec i si on t o d eny H as w anee ’ s m ot i on for acont i nu ance for a n abuse of di sc re t i on . Z af arv. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 1 F . 3d 13 57 , 13 62 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A n a l i e n tha ti s pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y a dj us thi s s t a tus t o tha tof a n a lie n la w f

u lly a d m itte d f

o rp e r m a n e n t r e s id e n c e p u r s u a n t to th e r e q u ir e m e n ts in I N A § 245, 8 U . S . C . § 1255. I n the c a s e of a n a l i e n l a w f

ul l y a dm i tt e d i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es , such al i en m ayadj usthi s s t atus “ i f ( 1) the al i en m akes an appl i c a t i on f

ors uc h a dj us tm e nt , ( 2) the a l i e n i s e l i gi bl e t o r e c e i ve a n i m m i gr a nt6

vi saand i s a dm i ss i bl e t o the U ni t ed S t at es for perm anentre si dence, and (3) an i m m i grantvi sai s i m m edi at el y a vai l abl e t o h i m atthe t i m e hi s app l i ca t i on i s f i l ed. ” I N A § 245( a ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1255( a ) . H ow e ve r , a n a l i e n tha tove r s t a y e d hi s vi s a a nd b e c a m e i l l e g a l i s b a rr e d f r o m ap p l y i n g f

o r§ 1 2 5 5 ( a ) a d

j u s tm e n to f

s t a tu s . I NA § 2 4 5 ( c ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( c ) . N e v e r th e le s s , a s a n e x c e p tio n to § 1 2 5 5 ( c ) ’s b a r , § 1 2 5 5 ( i) s ta te s th a t, ( 1 ) N o tw ith s ta n d in g th e p r o v is io n s o f s u b s e c tio n s ( a ) a n d ( c ) o f th is se ct i on , an al i en ph ys i ca l l y pre se nti n the U ni t ed S t at es -- (A ) w ho -- ( i ) e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thouti ns pe c t i on; or ( ii) is w ith in o n e o f

th e c la s s e s e n u m e r a te d in s u b s e c tio n ( c ) o f th is s e c t i on; (B ) w ho i s the benefi ci ary ( i ncl ud i ng a s po use or c hi l d o f the pri nci pal al i en, i f e l i gi bl e t o rec ei ve a vi saun der s ec t i on 11 53 (d) of thi s t i t l e) of-- (i ) apet i t i on for c l as si fi ca t i on un der s ec t i on 11 54 of thi s t i t l e thatw as f i l e d w i th the A tt orne y G e ne r a l on orbe f or e A pr i l 30, 2001; or ( i i ) a n ap p l i c a t i o n f

o ra l ab o rc e r t i f

i c a t i o n u n d e rs e c t i o n 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A) of thi s t i t l e thatw as fi l ed pu rs uantt o the re gu l at i on s of the S ec re t ary of L aboron orbe f

or e s uc h da t e ; a nd ( C ) w ho, i n the c a s e of

a be ne f i c i a ry of a pe t i t i on f

orc l a s s i f i c a t i on, or a n ap p l i c a t i o n f

o rl ab o rc e r t i f

i c a t i o n , d e s c r i b e d i n s u b p a r a g r ap h ( B) tha tw a s f

i l e d a f t e rJ a nua ry 14, 1998, i s phy s i c a l l y pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s on D e c e m be r21, 2000; m ayappl y t o the A tt orney G ener al for the adj ustm entof hi s or her7

s ta tu s to th a t o f

a n a lie n la w f

u lly a d m itte d f

o rp e r m a n e n t r e s id e n c e . I N A § 2 4 5 ( i) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) ( 1 ) . N o n e th e le s s , a s w e e x p la in e d in Z af ar , “ [t ] he m er e f

i l i ng of a l abor cert i fi ca t e app l i ca t i on w i th the D O L do es no tm ake a n al i en el i gi bl e f or adj ustm entof st atus un der § 12 55 (i ). R ather, th e r e a r e tw o a d d itio n a l a n d m o r e d if f ic u lt s ta tu to ry e lig ib ility r e q u ir e m e n ts in § 1 2 5 5 ( i) th a t m u s t a ls o b e m e t.” Z a f a r , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 3 ( e m p h a s is in o ri g i n al ). S p eci fi cal l y, § 1 2 5 5 (i )(2 ) p ro v i d es: ( 2) U pon r e c e i ptof

s uc h a n appl i c a t i on a nd the s um he r e by r e qui r e d, the A tt orney G ener al m ayadj ustthe st atus of the al i en t o thatof an al i en l aw ful l y a dm i tt ed for permanent r es i dence i f- - ( A ) th e a lie n is e lig ib le to r e c e iv e a n im m ig r a n t v is a a n d is a d m is s ib le t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s f

orpe r m a ne ntr e s i de nc e ; a nd ( B) a n i mmi g r a n tv i s a i s i mme d i a t e l y a v a i l ab l e t o th e a l i e n a tth e t i me the appl i c a t i on i s f

i l e d. I N A § 2 4 5 ( i) ( 2 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) ( 2 ) . H er e, H as w anee soug htan em pl oym ent -bas ed vi saand h i s e m pl oyer fi l ed an I- 14 0 v i sapet i t i on on hi s behal f. A cc ordi ng t o the fe dera l re gu l at i on s thatdesc ri be the procedure for r ec ei vi ng an em pl oym ent -bas ed vi sa , “ [a ] ny [U . S . ] em pl oyerdesi ri ng and i nt endi ng t o em pl oy an al i en m ay fi l e apet i t i on for c l as si fi ca t i on of the al i en”— an I- 14 0 v i sapet i t i on — w hi ch m ustbe “ [a ] cc om pani ed by any r equi re d i nd i vi du al l abor cert i fi ca t i on . ” 8 C . F . R . § 204. 5( a ) , ( c ) , ( g) , ( l ) . T he pe t i t i on m a y be appr ove d orde ni e d, a ndVisa availability information is distributed by the U.S. Depa

rtment of State (“ DOS”), 2 and availa bil ity is b a se d o n th epriority

g iven tothealien’ s empl oy ment c la ssi fi c atio n. 8 U .S. C. § 1153(b)( 3); see also 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(g )(1) . Haswa nee’ s classification was that of “Skilled Worker” under I

NA § 203(b) (3)(A). Ac cordingto the DOS’s Visa B ulletins for Dec ember 2004 and April 2006, the months within which the IJand B IA, re spectively, denied Ha swane e’s motion for a continuanc e, visa number s wereavailablefor aliens in Haswane e’s c lassification. Se ehtt p:/ /trave l.s tate .g ov/vi sa

/f rv i/bull e tin/bulletin

_1 34 3. html; http://trave l.state.g ov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bul letin_2847.html. On appeal, Ha swane e asserts that he had immediately

availablevisa numbers duringhis procee dings be forethe IJand B IA. The g ov ernment doe s n ot c on c e dethat f a c t, but n e ith er doe s it

e xplic itly

c onte st it. While Haswa nee’ s exact priority

date is uncle ar f

rom the re cord a

nd his brief, the date the DOL a c c epte d his l a

bo r c ertif ic atio n f or proc e ssingwa s April 2 5, 20 01 . Thu s, Ap ri l 25 , 2 00 1 ishis priority datefo r pur

po se s o f his I -1 40 vis a

petition . Se e8 C. F .R. § 2 04 .5 (d) ( “ Th epriority date of any petition filed for c lassification under section 203(b) of the Ac t which is acc ompanied by an individual labor c ertifica tion from the [DOL ] shall be the date the request for cer tification was acc epted f

or proc essingby

any officewithin the employ ment servicesystem of the [DOL ]”). “An immigrant visa is considere d availablefor accepting a nd proce ssing the a

pplication For

m I -4 85 i[f ] the[em plo y ment c la ssi fi c atio n o f t

he ] appli c ant h a s a

priority dateon thewaitinglis t which is ea

rlier than thedate shown in the [DOS’s Visa] Bulletin (or theBulletin shows that numbers for

visa applica

nts in his or her categ ory

arecurrent).”8 C.F.R. § 245.1(g)(1) . 8 i n the e ve ntof

appr ova l : ( 1) a vi s a num be rw i l l be a s s i gne d i f a va i l abl e a nd ( 2) “ the appr ove d vi s a pe t i t i on ( F or m I - 140) , w i l l be r e t a i ne d by the [ i m m i gr a t i on s e r vi c e ] f

orc ons i de r a t i on w i th the appl i c a t i on f orpe r m a ne nt re si dence (Fo rm I- 48 5). ” 8 C . F . R . §§ 20 4. 5(n), 24 5. 1(g). H as w anee had i m m e di a t e l y a va i l abl e vi s a num be r s dur i ng hi s pr oc e e di ngs be f or e the I J a nd B I A. 2 I n Z a f

a r , w e a d d r e s s e d th e is s u e o f w h e th e rth e I J s ab u s e d th e ir di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng thr e e pe t i t i one r s ’ m ot i ons t o c ont i nue w he r e the pe t i t i one r s di d notha ve appr ove d l aborc e r t i f i c a t i ons a nd ha d notf

i l e d I - 140 vi sapet i t i on s or I -485 adj ustm entof st atus appl i ca t i on s. Z af ar , 46 1 F . 3d at9

1 3 6 2 . W e h e l d th a tth e I J s d i d n o tab u s e th e i rd i s c r e t i o n b e c a u s e , a tth e t i me of the pe t i t i one r s ’ r e m ova l he a r i ngs , the y ha d notr e c e i ve d a n appr ove d l abor ce rt i fi ca t i on , fi l ed an I- 14 0 v i sapet i t i on , or fi l ed an I- 48 5 app l i ca t i on . Id. at 1363- 64. W e thus c onc l ude d tha tthe pe t i t i one r s w e r e note l i gi bl e t o r e c e i ve an i m m i grantvi sano r had they e st abl i shed thatan i m m i grantvi saw as i m m edi at el y a vai l abl e, and, there fore , they c ou l d n otm ee tthe st atut ory r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s u n d e rI N A § 2 4 5 ( i) ( 2 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) ( 2 ) . I d . I n Me r c h a n tv . U. S . Att ’ y Ge n . , 4 6 1 F . 3 d 1 3 7 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) , we f a c e d the i s s ue of

w he the rthe I J abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng a cont i nu ance w here M er chanthad an app roved l abor cert i fi ca t i on and h ad f ile d I - 1 4 0 a n d I - 4 8 5 ap p lic a tio n s . M e r c h a n t, 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 6 - 7 7 . W h ile the gove rnm e nti n M e r c ha ntc onc e de d tha tM e r c ha ntha d the af orem ent i on ed do cum ent s, the go vernm entm ai nt ai ned thatM er chanthad no tsa t i sf i ed § 1 25 5(i )( 2)(A ) bec ause hi s vi sapet i t i on had n otbeen ap p r o v e d . I d . a t 1 3 7 8 . W e r e je c te d th a t a r g u m e n t, s ta tin g th a t “th e s ta tu te c le a r ly p r o v id e s th a t a n a lie n in M e r c h a n t’s s h o e s n e e d o n ly b e ‘e lig ib le ’ to r e c e i v e th e v i s a , n o tth a th e m u s th a v e th e v i s a i n h a n d . ” I d . F u r th e r , we de t e r m i ne d tha t§ 1255( i ) ( 2) ( B ) a l s o di d notr e qui r e tha tthe a l i e n ha ve the vi s a “ i n ha nd” be c a us e “ both the R e gul a t i ons a nd the B I A c a s e l a w c ons trueAl so in M ercha nt, wea dd

re sse d th ea

pp lic a bil ity of our p revious de c isi on

in B ull , in 3 which weheld that the IJabused its discretion by ref using to grant a

continuancewhere the petitioner wa s marrie d to a U.S. citizen and had filed a n I -130 application for a f amily-base d visa. Merchant, 461 F.3d at 1378. Sim ilar to Merchant, Hasw aneeasser ts that the rationale w e a pp lie d in B ullsh ould b ea

pp lie d tohisc a se . O ur

tre atment o f B ullin M ercha nt i s e qu ally applicablehere : Although B ull ’sinv olv e ment withthefa vo re d f amily-b a se d v isa

c onte xt is a distinguishing f

actor , [the petitioners in B ull and Merchant] are somewhat similar in that both had applied for visas and both were elig ible for them. Thus, wethink B u llp ro v ide s s o mes u

p p o rt f o r th ec o n c lu s io nw ere a c h [e d ] [inM erc h ant] . Mercha nt, 46 1 F .3 d at 13 78 . Simil arly , a s discus se d mo refully be low , o ur

de c isi on in B ull provides some support for our holdingthat the district court a bused its discretion in denying Haswa nee’ s reque st for a c ontinuance. 10 . . . § 1255( i ) ( 2) ( B ) a s m e a ni ng tha ta n i m m i gr a ntvi s a num be rbe i m m ed i at el y av ai l ab l e t o th e al i en . ” Id . at1 3 7 8 n . 4 (em p h asi s ad d ed ). T h u s, w e c o n c lu d e d th a t M e r c h a n t w a s e lig ib le f o ra n im m ig r a n t v is a a n d e lig ib le f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus unde r§ 1255( i ) be c a us e he ha d a n appr ove d l abor ce rt i fi ca t i on and an i m m edi at el y a vai l abl e vi sanu m ber, and h ad fi l ed an I14 0 p et i t i on for vi saand an I-485 appl i ca t i on for a dj ustm entof st atus. Id. at 1 3 7 8 - 7 9 . W e a ls o e x p la in e d th a t o u rd e c is io n w a s n o t in c o n s is te n t w ith Z afar, as Z afar “exp ressl y l efto p en i ssu es i n v o l v i n g st ag es o f th i s p ro cess be y ond the m e r e f

i l i ng of the appl i c a t i on f

orl aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on. ” I d. a t1380 (c i t i ng Z af

ar , 46 1 F . 3d at13 67 ). 3 A s a n i ni t i al m att er , H as w anee ’ s c as e i s di st i ng ui shabl e f rom Z af ar be c a us e H a s w a ne e ha d a n appr ove d l aborc e r t i f i c a t i on a nd ha d f

i l e d a n I - 140 v is a p e titio n . B a s e d u p o n th e r e c o r d in th e in s ta n t c a s e , H a s w a n e e is a t a11

s t a ge i n the pr oc e s s tha ti s be tw e e n w he r e the Z a f a rpe t i t i one r s a nd M e r c ha nt sa tdu ri ng thei r r em ov al proceedi ng s. S peci fi ca l l y, H as w anee has a n approv ed l abor cert i fi ca t i on and h as fi l ed an I- 14 0 v i sapet i t i on , w hi ch pl ac es hi m ata l at erst age than the Z af arpet i t i on er s, bu thas notes t abl i shed th a t h e f ile d a I - 4 8 5 ap p lic a tio n f o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s a s M e r c h a n t h a d . T here fore , H as w anee ’ s c as e w i l l turn o n the qu es t i on of w hether a n approv ed l abor cert i fi ca t i on , an i m m edi at el y a vai l abl e vi sanu m ber, and an I1 4 0 v i s a p e t i t i o n a r e s u f f i c i e n tt o s a t i s f

y th e s t a tu t o ry r e q u i r e m e n t s o f I NA § 2 4 5 ( i) ( 2 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) ( 2 ) . F ol l ow i ng the re as on i ng of bo th Z af arand M er chant , H as w anee has sat i sfi ed th e st atu t o ry req u i rem en t s. P u rsu an tt o th e F ed eral R eg u l at i o n s, H a s w a ne e ha d c om pl e t e d hi s dut i e s w i th r e ga r d t o hi s I - 140 vi s a pe t i t i on, n a m e ly , o b ta in in g a n ap p r o v e d lab o rc e rtif ic a tio n a n d f

ilin g it a lo n g w ith h is pet i t i on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 04 . 5(a) , (c ), (g), (l ). M oreover, he had an im m ig r a n t v is a n u m b e rim m e d ia te ly a v a ilab le . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 4 .5 ( d ) ; 8 C . F . R . § 245. 1( g) ( 1) . T hus , H a s w a ne e w a s “ e l i gi bl e t o r e c e i ve a n i m m i gr a nt vi s a ” a nd a n “ i m m i gr a ntvi s a [ w a ] s i m m e di a t e l y a va i l abl e t o the a l i e n a tthe tim e th e ap p lic a tio n [ w a ]s f ile d .” I N A § 2 4 5 ( i) ( 2 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) ( 2 ) . T he on l y di ff

er ence betw ee n H as w anee and M er chanti s thatM er chanthad al so fi l ed an I- 48 5 adj ustm entof st atus appl i ca t i on . R egar dl es s, H as w anee12

m etthe st atut ory r equi re m ent s a nd , ac cordi ng t o M er chant , w e c on cl ud e that he w a s e l i gi bl e f

ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus unde r§ 1255( i ) . S e e M e r c ha nt , 461 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 9 . H ow e ve r , the gove rnm e nta r gue s , a nd the B I A a l t e rna t i ve l y f ound, tha tbe c a us e H a s w a ne e ha d notf i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus un der § 12 55 (i ), he coul d o nl y be c on si dere d for an adj ustm entun der § 1255( a ) , w hi c h l e f

thi m s ubj e c tt o the s t a tut ory ba rof § 1255( c ) . T he go vernm entci t es no autho ri ty f or thi s propo si t i on . In re spon se , H as w anee not e s he w a s notr e qui r e d t o f i l e the appl i c a t i on f

ors t a tus a dj us tm e ntdur i ng r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s b e c a u s e th e D H S c o u ld n o t h a v e a d ju d ic a te dit. F e de r a l R e gul a t i ons c l e a r l y s t a t e tha tthe D H S doe s notha ve j ur i s di c t i on o v e ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s ap p lic a tio n s w h e n th e a lie n h a s b e e n p la c e d in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . S e e 8 C .F .R . § § 2 4 5 .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 1 2 4 5 .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . H a s hw a ne e i s the r e f

or e e l i gi bl e f

ors t a tus a dj us tm e nt ; the unf i l e d appl i c a t i on ca nn otre nd erhi m i nel i gi bl e und er§ 1 25 5(i ) w hen the D H S w ou l d n oteven ha ve ha d j ur i s di c t i on ove rhi s pe t i t i on. T he r e c or d e s t abl i s he s tha t , a tthe tim e H a s w a n e e r e q u e s te d h is c o n tin u a n c e , h e s ta te d th a t h e in te n d e d to f ile fo r rel i ef u n d er § 1 2 5 5 (i ). T h ere i s n o th i n g i n th e g o v ern m en t ’ s arg u m en t s, the re cord, or ou r bi nd i ng prec edentthatw ou l d sup po rtappl yi ng the § 1255( c ) ba rhe r e be c a us e , a s di s c us s e d above , H a s w a ne e m e tthe r e l e va ntHaswa nee also appea

rs to contend that, a fter theBIA’s dismissal of his appeal, he filed a 4 motion to reopen in the B IA and submitted a c opy of his I -485 and I -485A adjustment of status forms. The record does not contain evidenceof Ha swane e’s motion to reopen or adjustment of status forms, and Ha swane e did not file a noticeof appe al with reg ard to the B IA’s alleg ed denial of hismotion

to re op en. Ac c ording ly, w ewi ll n ot c on sider a ny argument withre g ard

to the alleg ed motion to reopen. 13 s ta tu to ry r e q u ir e m e n ts o f § 1 2 5 5 ( i) a n d in d ic a te d b e f o r e th e I J th a t h e w o u ld pur s ue s uc h r e l i e f

. A c c or di ngl y , i n appl y i ng the r e a s oni ng a nd hol di ngs of 4 Z a f a ra n d M e r c h a n t to H a s w a n e e ’s c a s e , w e h o ld th a t th e I J ab u s e d its di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng H as w anee ’ s m ot i on for c on t i nu ance w here he had an appr ove d l aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on a nd a n i m m e di a t e l y a va i l abl e vi s a num be r , a nd ha d a pe ndi ng vi s a pe t i t i on.

B . D u e P r oc e s s an d E q u alP r ot e c t i on H a s w a ne e a r gue s on appe a l tha tthe B I A ’ s di s m i s s a l of hi s appe a l , a nd th e I J ’s d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to c o n tin u e , v io la te d h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b e c a u s e th e f

in d in g s r e q u ir e h im to le a v e th e c o u n try d e s p ite h is im m e d ia te el i gi bi l i ty f

or adj ustm entof st atus re l i ef . H e a l so m ai nt ai ns thathi s e qu al pr ot e c t i on r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d be c a us e , ha d he notbe e n r e qui r e d be c a us e of hi s P aki st ani ori gi n t o app ea r f or re gi stra t i on as partof the no w -s uspend ed N a tio n a l S e c u r ity E n try E x it R e g is tr a tio n S y s te m ( “N S E E R S ” ) , h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n p la c e d in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . H e f u r th e ra s s e r ts th a t, in other j uri sdi ct i on s, IJ s typi ca l l y gra ntcont i nu ance s i n ci rc um st ance s s uch as14

these , bu ti n A t l ant a, al i ens a re tre at ed di ff er ent l y. L as t l y, H as w anee m a in ta in s th a t it w a s b e y o n d th e I N S ’s in te rn a l p o lic y a n d g e n e r a l p u b lic p o lic y to d e n y h im th e o p p o r tu n ity to le g a liz e h is s ta tu s u n d e r§ 1 2 5 5 ( i) . W e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew subst ant i al const i tut i on al cl ai m s r ai se d in th e im m ig r a tio n c o n te x t. M o o r e v . A s h c r o f t, 2 5 1 F .3 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 3 - 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e p e titio n e r s in Z a f a rr a is e d c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s s im ila rto thos e r a i s e d by H a s w a ne e . S e e Z a f a r , 461 F . 3d a t1367. W e r e j e c t e d the p e titio n e r s ’ d u e p r o c e s s a r g u m e n ts b e c a u s e th e irr e q u e s te d r e lie f , n a m e ly , a cont i nu ance of thei r r em ov al proceedi ng s, w as di sc re t i on ary r el i ef for w hi ch no c ons t i tut i ona l l y pr ot e c t e d r i ghte xi s t e d. S e e i d. ( c i t i ng T e f e l v. R e no, 180 F . 3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . As t o th e i re q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m s , we f i r s tde t e r m i ne d tha ti tw a s nota n e qua l pr ot e c t i on vi ol a t i on t o r e qui r e the a l i e ns t o r e gi s t e rpur s ua ntt o the N S E E R S pr oc e s s . Z a f a r , 461 F . 3d a t1367 ( c i t i ng R e no v. A m e r i c a n- A r ab A nt i - D i s c r i m i na t i on C om m . , 525 U . S . 471, 489- 92, 119 S . C t . 936, 142 L . E d. 2d 940 ( 1999) ( f i ndi ng tha tthe I N S r e t a i ns i nh er entprosec ut ori al di sc re t i on as t o w hether t o b ri ng re m ov al pr oc e e di ngs ) ) . W e a l s o r e j e c t e d the Z a f

a rpe t i t i one r s ’ e qua l pr ot e c t i on a r g u m e n t r e g a r d in g d if

f e r in g tr e a tm e n t b e tw e e n I J s in A tla n taa n d th o s e in othe rj ur i s di c t i ons be c a us e the pe t i t i one r s di d notc i t e , nordi d w e f i nd, a ny c a s e la w s u p p o r tin g th e a r g u m e n t. I d .15

B ec ause H as w anee ’ s due proces s a nd equal prot ec t i on ar gu m ent s a re ne a r l y i de nt i c a l t o thos e m a de by the pe t i t i one r s i n Z a f a r , w e w i l l f

ol l ow our p r e c e d e n t a n d s im ila r ly r e je c t H a s w a n e e ’s a r g u m e n ts . F ir s t, p u r s u a n t to Z a f a r , the r e i s no c ons t i tut i ona l l y pr ot e c t e d r i ghtt o the di s c r e t i ona ry r e l i e f of a c on t i nu ance of hi s r em ov al proceedi ng s. M oreover, as t o h i s e qu al prot ec t i on ar gu m ent s, H as w anee offe rs no supp orti n the re cord or cas e l aw t endi ng t o sho w an equal prot ec t i on vi ol at i on . L as t l y, t o the ext entthat H as w anee ar gu es thatthe B IA vi ol at ed the IN S ’ s i nt ernal po l i ci es , w e nee d n o t r e ly o n th o s e p o lic ie s g iv e n th e s ta tu to ry b a s is f o ro u rd e c is io n , w h ic h is di sc usse d i n i ss ue II . A . abov e, and o ur re cogn i t i on thatIN S i nt ernal m em oranda “ ar e f

or the conv eni ence of the IN S and [do ] no thave the force a n d e f f e c t o f la w .” I d . a t 1 3 6 5 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) .

I I I . C on c l u s i on F o ra ll o f th e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e h o ld th a t th e I J ab u s e d h is d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g H asw an ee’ s m o t i o n fo r a co n t i n u an ce. W e n o n eth el ess c onc l ude tha tthe I J ’ s a nd B I A ’ s de ni a l of the m ot i on t o c ont i nue di d not vi ol at e H as w anee ’ s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e g r a nt H a s w a n e e ’s p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w in p a r t, va cate the de c i s i on of the B I A , a nd r e m a nd fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. PETI TI O N G R A N TED I N PA R T.