FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 15 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 05- 10587 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 77- 318- 249 E J A Z A H M E D S H A H , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, 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- A p p e lle e .

________________________ 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

_________________________ ( A ugus t15, 2006) ON P E T I T I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG B efo re B L A C K , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:On November 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 1 2002 (“H SA”), Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2125. The HSA c reated a new Depa rtment of Homeland Security

(“D HS”), a

bolished the I

NS, and transf

erred its functions to the new depar tment. Be causethis case c ommenced while the I NS was still in ex istence, w e re fer to the I NS rather t

ha n th eDH S. 2 T he pet i t i on for r ehea ri ng i s gra nt ed and t he pri or op i ni on fi l ed S ept em ber 14, 2005, i s va c a t e d. T he f ol l ow i ng opi ni on i s s ubs t i tut e d. E j a z A hm e d S ha h pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the B I A ’ s de c i s i on af fi rm i ng the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) deni al of S hah’ s m ot i on for a c o n t i n u a n c e . We a f

f i r m th e B I A f

o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th b e l o w. I. S hah, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f P aki st an, arri ved atL os A ng el es Int ernat i on al A i rpor ton J ul y 4, 2000, w i thoutva l i d e ntry doc um e nt s . H e appl i e d f ora dm i s s i on t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd w a s pa r ol e d i nt o the c ountry ba s e d on a c r e di bl e thr e a tof pers ec ut i on . T he Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) fi l ed a N ot i ce 1 t o A ppe a ron J ul y 19, 2000, c ha r gi ng S ha h a s a n a rr i vi ng a l i e n r e m ova bl e f or f a i l u r e t o p o s s e s s v a l i d e n try d o c u me n t s . I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 18 2(a) (7)( A )( i )( I) . A ta hea ri ng before an IJ on M ar ch 29 , 20 01 , S hah con ce ded r e m ova bi l i ty . I ni t i a l l y , S ha h r e que s t e d r e l i e f f r om r e m ova l by f

i l i ng a n appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd a n appl i c a t i on f orr e l i e f unde rtheIn Velarde , the B IA explained that a properly filed motion to reopen f

or adjustment of 2 status based on a

marriag e entered into af

ter the c ommencement of removal proce eding s may be grante d in the exercise of discretion notwithstandingthe pendency of a visa petition fil ed on the alien’s behalf, if: (1) the motion is t imely filed; (2) themotion is not numerically barred by

the re gu l at i o n s ; ( 3 ) th em o t i o ni s n o tb ar re d b y Matter of Shaar , 21 I . & N . Dec . 541 (B IA 1996), or o nany o th er p ro ce d ura lgro un d s ; (4 ) c l ear an d co nv i n ci n g ev i d en ce i s p re s ent edi n di cat i n g a stronglikelihood that the marriag e is bona fide ; and (5) theI NS does not oppose the motion or bases its opposition sol ely on Matter of Arthur , 2 0 I . &N. De c . 4 75 (B IA 1 99 2) (h oldingthat a motion to reopen to apply for a n adjustment of status based on a n unadjudicate d visa petition filed by a United States c itiz en or la wful per manent re sident spouse must be denied) . Matter of Velarde , 23 I . & N . Dec . at 256. 3 U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, or D egra di ng T re atm entor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) . D uri ng the course of hi s r em ov al proceedi ng s, S hah m arri ed a U ni t ed S t at es c i t i z e n, a nd s ubs e que nt l y f i l e d a n I - 130 P e t i t i on f

orA l i e n R e l a t i ve . A ta he a r i ng be f or e a n I J on J a nua ry 9, 2003, S ha h w i thdr e w w i th pr e j udi c e hi s r e que s tf

or a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C A T , a nd i ns t e a d, he m ove d f ora c ont i nua nc e ba s e d on the pe ndi ng I - 130 pe t i t i on, a r gui ng tha the s a t i s f i e d the c r i t e r i a out l i ne d i n M at t e rof V e lar de , 23 I. & N . D ec . 25 3 (B IA 2002) . T he I J de ni e d the m ot i on f ora c ont i nua nc e , not i ng tha the di d notha ve the 2 a uthor i ty t o a dj udi c a t e e i the rthe I - 130 pe t i t i on orthe appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntof s ta tu s , a n d o r d e r e d S h a h ’s r e m o v a l. S hah app ea l ed the deci si on t o the B IA . A l tho ug h h e c on ce ded t hatthe IJ la c k e d th e a u th o r ity to a d ju s t h is s ta tu s , S h a h m a in ta in e d th a t th e I J a b u s e d h is d iscr etio n b y d en yin g th e m o ti o n fo r c o n ti n u an ce w ith o u t co n sid er in g S h ah ’s4

e v id e n c e th a t th e m a rr ia g e w a s b o n a f id e . T h e B I A r e m a n d e d th e c a s e to th e I J to pr e pa r e a s e pa r a t e or a l orw r i tt e n or de r . T he I J i s s ue d a w r i tt e n opi ni on r e a f f i r m i ng hi s or a l de c i s i on, di s t i ngui s hi ng V e lar de a nd e xpl a i ni ng a ga i n tha the l a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on t o a dj udi c a t e the I - 130 pe t i t i on ora n appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e nt of st atus because s uch aut ho ri ty “ i s ves t ed excl usi vel y i n [the U ni t ed S t at es C i t i ze nshi p and Im m i grat i on S ervi ce s ( “ U S C IS ”) ] i n the ca se of arri vi ng al i ens. ” T h e B IA th en af

firm ed w ith o u t o p in io n o n A u g u st 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , m ak in g th e I J’s de c i s i on the f

i na l a ge nc y de t e r m i na t i on. S hah m ov ed the B IA for r ec on si dera t i on . In hi s m ot i on , S hah ass ert ed, i nt er a l i a , tha tthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on i n M at t e rof V e lar de shou l d con trol . T he B IA deni ed th e m o t i o n . S h a h th e n f i l e d th e i n s t a n tp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. II . W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on f

ora bus e of d is c r e tio n . A s s a’ ad v . U . S. A t tor ne

y G e n. , 33 2 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 41 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ), ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 3 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . M o tio n s f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n a r e d is f a v o r e d in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . I N S v . D o h e r ty , 502 U . S . 314, 323 ( 1992) ( di s c us s i ng m o t i o n s t o reo p en an d ex p l ai n i n g th atsu ch m o t i o n s are d i sfav o red b ecau se “ as a ge ne r a l m a tt e r , e ve ry de l a y w or ks t o the a dva nt a ge of the de por t a bl e a l i e n w ho w i s he s m e r e l y t o r e m a i n i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s ” ) . F ur the r , i ti s c l e a rtha tthe de c i s i onPrior to the removal of the re gulation, this circuit held that it was invalid in Scheerer v. 3 U.S. Attorney General , 445 F.3d 1311, 1320- 22 (11th Cir. 2006) (invalidating8 C.F.R § 1245.1(c) (8), whic h was identical to 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)( 8)). 5 to g r a n t a m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n lie s f ir m ly w ith in th e d is c r e tio n o f th e B I A . 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(a) . H e r e , the B I A di d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n . O n ap p e a l to th is c o u r t, S h a h a r g u e s f o rth e f ir s t tim e th a t 8 C . F . R . § 245. 1( c ) ( 8) i s i nva l i d a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th 8 U . S . C . § 1255( a ) . T he r e gul a t i on, how e ve r , w hi c h r e nde r e d a rr i vi ng a l i e ns i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs i ne l i gi bl e t o appl y f

ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus , ha s s i nc e be e n r e m ove d f r om the C ode o f F e d e r a l R e g u la tio n s . E lig ib ility o f A rr iv in g A lie n s in R e m o v a l P r o c e e d in g s to 3 A ppl y f orA dj us tm e ntof

S t a tus a nd J ur i s di c t i on t o A dj udi c a t e A ppl i c a t i ons f or A dj us tm e ntof

S t a tus , 71 F e d. R e g. 27585 ( M a y 12, 2006) . A l though S ha h di d not p r e s e n tth i s a r g u me n tb e f o r e th e I J o rth e BI A , th i s c o u r th a s n o t e d th a t“ [ s ] o me c i r c u i t s h a v e i n d i c a t e d i n d i c t a th a tc o n s t i tu t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e s t o th e I NA a n d I NS pr oc e dur e s a nd s om e due pr oc e s s c l a i m s do notr e qui r e e xha us t i on, be c a us e the B IA do es no thave the po w ert o adj ud i ca t e tho se cl ai m s. ” Su n da rv . I NS , 328 F . 3d 1320, 1325 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( c i t i ng Be r n a l- Va l l e j o v . I NS , 19 5 F . 3d 56 , 64 (1stC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ; Aki n wu n m iv . I

NS , 1 9 4 F .3 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 1 ( 1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ; Mo js i l o v i c v . I

NS , 1 5 6 F .3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 8 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; Ra s h ta b a d iv . I NS , 23 F . 3d 15 62 , 15 67 (9th C i r.6

1 9 9 4 ) ) . S hah’ s c on t ent i on thatthe deni al of hi s m ot i on for acont i nu ance by the IJ a nd the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on by the B I A w e r e gr ounde d i n the n o w - d e f u n c t r e g u la tio n , h o w e v e r , is m is p la c e d . T h e f a c ts o f th is c a s e a r e q u ite unl i ke thos e i n Sc he e r e rv . U . S. A t tor ne

y G e ne r al , w h e r e , a f

te rh o ld in g th a t 8 C . F . R . § 1245. 1( c ) ( 8) w a s i nva l i d, thi s c our tr e ve r s e d the B I A ’ s de ni a l of the pe t i t i one r ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n be c a us e the B I A ’ s de c i s i on s pe c i f i c a l l y r e l i e d on the re gu l at i on . 44 5 F . 3d 13 11 , 13 22 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). N othi ng i n the re cord here i n d i c a t e s th a tth e I J o rth e BI A b a s e d th e i rd e c i s i o n s o n th e f o r me r8 C. F. R. § 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) . I n hi s w r i tt e n de c i s i on, the I J not e d tha t“ [ t ] he de c i s i on i n M at t e rof V e lar de w a s a r e s pons e t o the f

a c ttha tthe B oa r d’ s de c i s i on i n M at t e rof A r thur. . . coup l ed w i th the r e gul a t i on l i m i t i ng r e s ponde nt s t o one m ot i on t o r e ope n f i l e d w i thi n 90 da y s of a f i na l a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i on a nd the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S ervi ce ’ s i nabi l i ty t o adj ud i ca t e m any I -130 pet i t i on s w i thi n thatt i m e f ra m e, had th e e f f e c t o f d e p r iv in g a s m a ll c la s s o f r e s p o n d e n ts w h o w e r e o th e rw is e p r im a f a c ie e l i gi bl e f ora dj us tm e ntof

the oppor tuni ty t o ha ve the i ra dj us tm e ntappl i c a t i ons r e vi e w e d by a n I m m i gr a t i on J udge . ” D i s t i ngui s hi ng V e lar de f r om the i ns t a nt ac t i on , the IJ expl ai ned t hat , du e t o S hah’ s s t atus as an arri vi ng al i en, he l ac ked7

j ur i s di c t i on t o a dj udi c a t e both the I - 130 pe t i t i on a nd the appl i c a t i on t o a dj us ts t a tus be c a us e “ [ t ] he a uthor i ty t o a dj udi c a t e both of the s e i s ve s t e d e xc l us i ve l y i n [ the U ni t e d S t a t e s C i t i z e ns hi p a nd I m m i gr a t i on S e r vi c e s ( “ U S C I S ” ) ] i n the c a s e of a rr i vi ng a l i e ns . ” T he I J r e a s one d tha t , a l though S ha h w oul d c ont i nue t o ha ve r e dr e s s i n f

r ontof the U S C I S , the I J ’ s ow n l a c k of j ur i s di c t i on r e nde r e d the ra t i on al e of V

e lar de i n ap p l i cab l e u n d er th e ci rcu m st an ces. A l though hi s w r i tt e n de c i s i on l a c ks c i t a t i ons , the I J ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha the l a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on t o a dj udi c a t e S ha h’ s i m m i ne ntappl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntof st atus w as base d o n the form er8 C . F . R . § 2 45 . 2(a) (1), w hi ch S hah ackno w l edged in h is ap p e lla te b r ie f

b e f o r e th e B I A a n d in h is m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . A ju r is d ic tio n a l r e g u la tio n , 8 C .F .R . § 2 4 5 .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) f o r m e r ly s ta te d : A n a l i e n w ho be l i e ve s he ors he m e e t s the e l i gi bi l i ty r e qui r e m e nt s of s e c t i on 245 of

the A c tors e c t i on 1 of

the A c tof

N ove m be r2, 1966, a nd § 245. 1 s ha l l appl y t o the di r e c t orha vi ng j ur i s di c t i on ove rhi s or he rpl a c e of

r e s i de nc e unl e s s othe rw i s e i ns truc t e d i n 8 C F R pa r t245, or by the i nstruct i on on the appl i ca t i on form . A ft eran al i en, other tha n a n a rr i vi ng a l i e n, i s i n de por t a t i on orr e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , hi s or her app l i ca t i on for a dj ustm entof st atus un der s ec t i on 24 5 o f the A ct ors e c t i on 1 of

the A c tof

N ove m be r2, 1966 s ha l l be m a de a nd consi dere d o nl y i n tho se proceedi ng s. A n arr i vi ng al i en, other than an a l i e n i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , w ho be l i e ve s he ors he m e e t s the e l i gi bi l i ty r e qui r e m e nt s of s e c t i on 245 of

the A c tors e c t i on 1 of

the A c tof N ove m be r2, 1966, a nd § 245. 1 s ha l l appl y t o the di r e c t or h a v in g ju r is d ic tio n o v e rh is o rh e rp la c e o f a rr iv a l. . . . 8 C .F .R . § 2 4 5 .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 5 ) , am e nde d by 7 1 F e d . R e g . 2 7 5 8 5 ( M a y 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) .The DH S regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a) (1) ( 2005) and theidentically worde d 4 Ex ecutive O fficeof Immigration Review regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1245(a) (1) ( 2005) paralleled the former 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c )(8) and did not provide e ither the IJor the USCI S with jurisdi ction to adjudicate a

n application for

adjustment of status for a n arriving alien in removal proc eeding s. In addition to removingthe former 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c )(8) , the Secretar y of DHS and the 5 Attorney General also amended theregulations to clarify which depa

rtmental component has jurisdiction to adjudicate adjustment applications of arrivingaliens in removal proce eding s. 71 Fe d. Reg . 27585 (May

12, 2006). Under the current versions of 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(1) and 1245.2(a) (1), the U SCI S has exclusive jurisdiction t o adjudicateany application for

adjustment of statusfi le d b y

an a rrivingalien in

remov al proc e e ding s w ithon ee xcepti on that is ina

pp lic a ble here . The IJ ’s deter

mination that he lacke d jurisdiction to adjust S hah’s status is there fore c or re c t un der t

heamend e d re gulatio ns a s w e ll. 8 A l though the I J s t a t e d i nc orr e c t l y tha tthe U S C I S r e t a i ne d j ur i s di c t i on ove rS ha h, a n a rr i vi ng a l i e n i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , the I J pr ope r l y de t e r m i ne d tha tthe a bove r e g u l a t i o n d i v e s t e d h i m o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . Th e r e s c i s s i o n o f th e f o r me r8 C. F. R. 4 § 245. 1( c ) ( 8) ( a nd the c onc urr e nta m e ndm e nt s t o 8 C . F . R . §§ 245. 2( a ) ( 1) a nd 1245. 2( a ) ( 1) ) i n no w a y a f f e c t s the I J ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha the l a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on. 5 U l t i m a t e l y , i tw a s the I J ’ s c orr e c tc onc l us i on tha the l a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on unde rthe f or m e r8 C . F . R . § 245. 2( a ) ( 1) tha tf or m e d the f

ounda t i on f

orthe I J ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng S ha h’ s m ot i on f ora c ont i nua nc e . U nl i ke i n Scheer er , 8 C. F. R. § 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , w h ic h d id n o t g a rn e ra s in g le m e n tio n in th e s e p r o c e e d in g s u n til S h a h ’s o p e n in g b r ie f

in th is c o u r t, p la y e d n o r o le in th e I J ’s d e c is io n . C o m p a re Scheer er , 445 F . 3d a t1315 ( “ T he B I A de ni e d hi s m ot i on [ t o r e ope n] . . . f i ndi ng S chee re r, an arri vi ng al i en i n rem ov al proceedi ng s, w as subj ec tt o a re gu l at ory bar , 8 C . F . R . § 1245. 1( c ) ( 8) , w hi c h r e nde r e d hi m i ne l i gi bl e t o appl y f ora dj us tm e ntof9

s ta tu s .” ) . T h e r e f

o r e , b e c a u s e S h a h h a s f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e I J e rr e d in r e ga r d t o hi s ow n j ur i s di c t i on ortha tthe I J orB I A gr ounde d the i rde c i s i ons i n the f o r m e r8 C .F .R . § 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , w e h o ld th a t th e B I A d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . A c c or di ngl y , w e D E N Y the pe t i t i on. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.