FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T November

19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 07 -1 59 11 an d 0 8- 11 87 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A9 5- 91 4- 30 3 SIKKANDER SUBJ ALI CHACKU, Pet it io ne r,
ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io ns forRev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 19 , 20 08 )
Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Pet it io ne r Si kk an de r Ch acku, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof I nd ia , ent eredth e

Uni te d S ta te s o n Ap ril 27 , 19 97 , as ano ni m m ig ran t v is it orau th or iz edto rem ai n fo r a p eri odno t t o e xc eedth ree m on th s. OnDecem be r 3, 2 00 4, the Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y

(“ DHS”) s erv edCh acku wi th a Not ic e to App ear, wh ic h al le ge d t ha t h e was rem ov ab le as ano ni m m ig ran t b ecau se he ha d re m ai ne d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s l on ge r th anpe rm it te d a ndfai le d t o c om pl y wit h t he co nd it io ns of t he
no ni m m ig ran t s ta tu s. On No ve m

be r 17 , 20 05 , Cha cku, re pr es en te d b y co un se l, ap pe aredbe fo re
anIm m ig rat io n J ud ge (“ IJ ”) an d s ta te d t ha t h e h adfil eda Fo rm I-1 40 Im m ig ran t Pet it io n fo r Ali enW orke r (“ vi sape ti ti on ”) b as edup on anap pr ov edApp li cat io n fo r Ali enEm

pl oym en t Ce rti fic at io n (“ labo r certi fic at io n” ). He rep res en te d t ha t th e v is a p et it io n h adbe enfil edon Sep te m be r 19 , 20 05 , andbe cau se hi s l ab or cert ifi cat io n a lre ady

ha d b een ap pr ov ed , he wo ul d b e el ig ib le foranad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”) § 24 5( I), 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (I), i f hi s v is a p et it io n wer e ap pr ov ed . He th eref or e req ue st eda co nt in ua nc e of hi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs so th athi s v is a p et it io n c ou ldbe ad jud ic at ed . The IJ
co nt in ue d t he rem ov al pro ceed in gs to Jan uary 5, 2 00 6, af

te r Ch acku a ndth e Gov ern m en t ag reedth at , if h is vi sape ti ti on were n otap pr ov edby tha t d at e an d t he IJ ord eredhi s re m ov al , he wo ul d i m m ed ia te ly dep artvo lu nt ari ly.
2The rem ov al he ari ng co m m en cedon Jan ua ry

5, as sch edul ed . His a tt orne y
was no t p rep aredto go forward , so th e h eari ng was c on ti nu edto Feb ru ary 9, 2 00 6, whe n i t was reco nv en ed . At th atti m e, Ch acku c on ced edrem ov ab il it y an d reque st edan ot he r co nt inua nc e b ecau se hi s v is a p et it io n h adno t yet be en ad jud ic at ed . The IJ de ni edhi s re qu es t fo r a co nt in ua nc e an d, atth e co nc lu si on of th e h eari ng , ord eredCh acku’s re m ov al , gra nt in g h im th e v ol un ta ry

de pa rtu re h e
an d t he Gov ern m en t h adpre vi ou sl y ag reedto . In o rd eri ng Ch acku’s re m ov al , th e IJ cit edBo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) pre ced en t h ol di ng th atanali en ha s
no ab so lu te rig htto th e ad jou rn m en t o f rem ov al pro ceed in gs in ord er t o a waitth e di sp os it io n o f an ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . Mor eo ve r, th e d en ia l o f a
co nt in ua nc e fo r ad

jud ic at io n o f a p en di ng em pl oym en t-b as edvi sape ti ti on was di sc ret io na ry

si nc e Ch acku was no t el ig ib le foranad jus tm en t o f st atus un ti l h is pe nd in g p et it io n was ap pr ov ed
. On M arch 10 , 20 06 , Cha cku app eal edth e IJ ’s dec is io n t o t he BIA. On Decem be r 7, 2 00 6, wh il e th e ap pe al was p en di ng , he m ov edth e BIA t o re m an d th e cas e to th e IJ be cau se hi s v is a p et it io n h adbe enap pr ov edon Nov em be r 15 , 20 06 . He att ach edto hi s m ot io n aco py of a Fo rm I-4 85 , App li cat io n t o R eg is te r
as Perm an en t Re si de ntor Ad jus t St atus (“ ad

jus tm en t ap pl ic at io n” ), whi ch sh owe d th athe fil edth e ap pl ic at io n o n Dec em be r 6, 2 00 6, re pr es en ti ng th at“ animm ig ran t
3pe ti ti on gi vi ng [hi m ] anim m ed ia te av ai labl e imm ig ran t v is a num be r ha [d ] be en ap pr ov ed .” He als o a tt ach eda co py of a “Not ic e o f Act io n,” whi ch sh owe d t ha t,
as a sk il le d wo rk er, h is pri or it y da te fora vi sawas Fe brua ry 21 , 20 03
. (Id . at 1 2 13 0) . Becau se he att ach edne w evi de nc e, th e BIA ap pa ren tl y co ns tru edhi s m ot io n
as a m ot io n t o re op en . On No ve m

be r 30 , 20 07 , th e BIA af

firm edth e IJ ’s dec is io n, d is m is se d Ch acku’s ap pe al , andde ni edhi s m ot io n t o re m an d. The BIA h el d t ha t t he IJ d id
no t ab us e h is di sc ret io n i n d en y in g t he co nt in ua nc e, as th e IJ was u nd er n o ob li ga ti on to ho ldth e rem ov al pro ceed in gs in ab ey an ce i nd efi ni te ly, an d u nl ik e th e p et it io ne r in Merc ha ntv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 61 F.3d13 75 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), Ch acku d idno t h av e ei th er an ap pr ov edvi sape ti ti on or avi saimm ed ia te ly
av ai labl e to hi m

by the da te of t he he ari ng . The BIA s ta te d t ha t, p ur su an t t o INA Although the term “priorty date” is not clea rly define d by statute or case law, an alien’s 1 priority date is the date on which his la bor cer tification is a

pproved, at which point he is pe rmitted to file an I -140 “Immigra

nt Petition for Alien Worker” form to e stablish his elig ibilit y to file the I
485 form. The Depa

rtment of State Visa Bulletin is published monthly and lists cut-off priority dates for differ ent immigration cate g ories and birth countries. Only those aliens with priority dates befor e the cutoff date a re pe rmitted to file their adjustment of status applications. Although it is unclea

r from the rec ord why Chacku was g iven a priority date of Fe bruar y 2 21, 2003, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) provides that “[t] he priority date of any petition filed for classification under section 203(b) of the Act which is acc ompanied by an individual labor cer tification from the [Department of L abor] shall be the date the reque st for cer tification was acc epted for proce ssing by any office within th e employ ment service sy stem of the [Department].” See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). Thus, althoug h it is not expli citly stated in the rec ord, Fe bruar y 21st likely beca

me Chacku’s priority date beca use that was the date on which his reque st for cer tification was acc epted by the Depa rtment. See id. 4§ 2 45 (i) (2 ), th e Att orne y Gene ral m ay

ad jus t the st atus of a n a li enif t ha t al ie n “ is el ig ib le to rece iv e an im

m ig ran t v is a an d i s ad m is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e; an d an i m m ig ran t v is a is im

m ed ia te ly avai labl e to th e al ie n atth e ti m e th e ap pl ic at io n i s fi le d.” See INA § 24 5( i)( 2) , 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (i) (2 ). The BIA n ot edth at , acco rd in g t o t he Depa rtment o f St at e Vis a Bu ll et in , Cha cku’s pr io rit y da te for a vi sato be co m e av ai labl e to hi m was Fe brua ry

21 , 20 03 , andth e
cu rren t p rio rit y

da te fora th ird -p refe ren ce ca te go ry vi saforInd iawas M ay

1, 20 01
. The BI A acco rd in gl y co nc lu de d t ha t, b ecau se Ch acku was no t s im il arl y 3 si tu at edto th e al ie n i n M erch an t an d was no t cu rren tl y st atut or il y

eli gi bl e fo r a vi sa , th e IJ ’s hadrul edco rrec tl y . Furt he rm or e, be cau se a vi sawas n ot imm ed ia te ly avai labl e to Ch acku, h e fai le d t o m ak e a p rima facie sh owi ng th athe
was eli gi bl e fo r an ad

jus tm en t o f st atus . On Dec em

be r 31 , 20 07 , Cha cku m ov edth e BIA t o re co ns id er i ts di sp os it io n, as se rti ng th atth e BIA h aderredin de nyin g h is m ot io n t o re m an d. He co nt en de d t ha t t he da te form eas ur in g wh ethe r an ap pl ic an t’s p rio rit y da te is
“An immigr ant visa is c onsidered available for a ccepting a nd proce ssing the a

pplication 3 For m I -485 i [f] the [ employ

m en t classification of t he] applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is ear lier than the date shown in the [Department of State’s Visa] Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her cate g ory are curr ent).” 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(g )(1)
. It is this calc ulation that deter mines whether a visa number is immediately available t o an alien. Importantly , “[a]n alien is ineligible for the benef its of [I NA § 245] unless an immigra nt visa is immediately

available to him or her at the time the [adjustment] application is filed.” I d. 5cu rren t, s uc h t ha t a v is a num be r is imm ed ia te ly avai labl e to hi m , is th e d at e o n whi chth e ap pl ic an t fi le s h is ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus , or wh enhe reque st s a r em an d. He arg ue d t ha t, o n t he da te th athe fil edhi s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus an d wh enhe fil edhi s m ot io n t o re m an d, h is pri or ity da te was
cu rren t; th us , he s ho ul d n otha ve be enpe na li zedby the subs eque ntretro gr es si on of pri or it y da te s, whi ch cau se d h is pri or ity da te no t t o b e curren t. In supp ort o f 4 hi s ar gu m en t, h e ci te d t he BIA’s de ci si on in Mat te r of Bri on es , 24 I&N Dec. 3 55 (BIA 2 00 7) , whi ch st at es th at , bec au se th e res po nd en t h ada cu rren t p rio rit y da te whe n h e subm it te d h is ad jus tm en t ap pl ic at io n t o t he IJ, h e was “ no t re nd ered in el ig ib le forsu chrel ie f by virtu e o f th e subs eque ntret ro gr es si on of h is pri or it y da te , alt ho ug h fi na l ap pr ov al of the ap pl ic at io n wo ul d h av e to be he ldin ab ey an ce.” On M arch 19 , 20 08 , th e BIA d en ie d C ha cku’s m ot io n t o re co ns id er, fi nd in g th at , un li ke th e res po nd en t i n B rio ne s, Ch acku d idno t h av e a cu rren t p rio rit y da te whe n h e fi le d h is ad

jus tm en t ap pl ic at io n o r whe n h e fi le d h is m ot io n t o re m an d. Thi s i s b ecau se th e p rio rit y da te fora vi sato be co m e av ai labl e to hi m was

The list of cut-off priority dates to file an adjustment application g ener ally moves forwa rd 4 over time a s case s are disposed of, but , under c erta in circumstanc es, such a s when a larg e number of old case s m ak es i t s wa y throug h the sy stem at the same time, the cut-off dates can actua lly retrogress, or roll back, which may place the cut-off ear lier than the applicant’ s priority date, which would make the a

pplicant inelig ible to file an a djustment application. 6Feb ru ary 21 , 20 03 , and , on Decem be r 7, 2 00 6 –th e d at e o n wh ic h h e fi le d b ot h h is ap pl ic at io n fo r ad

jus tm en t an d h is m ot io n t o re m an d –th e p rio rit y da te foran
em pl oym en t-b as edth ird -p refe ren ce ca te go ry vi saforInd ia , whi ch is whathe was
se ek in g, was Apri l 2 2, 2 00 1. Thus , he was no t p rima facie eli gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t of st atus when he fil edhi s ap pl ic at io n, an d t he refo re, h e was no t en ti tl edto ha ve hi s ap pl ic at io n h el d i n abe y an ce. Ch acku s eek s re vi ew of

th e BIA’s d eci si on s i n t wo p et it io ns forrev ie w. The fir stch al le ng es th e BIA’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n t o re m an d andaffi rm in g th e IJ ’s den ia l o f a co nt in ua nc e. The s eco ndch al le ng es th e BIA’s d en ia l o f hi s
m ot io n t o re co ns id er. W e h av e co ns ol id at edth e two pe ti ti on s. Inhi s p et it io ns forrev ie w, Cha cku fi rs t co nt en ds th atth e BIA’s d is m is sa l o f hi s ap pe al fro m

th e IJ ’s den ia l o f a co nt in ua nc e was im pr op er b ecau se th e rec or d de m on st rat edth ata labo r certi fic at io n a lre ady ha d b een ap pr ov edforhi m , anda vi sape ti ti on was p en di ng on th e d at e o f hi s l as t re m ov al pro ceed in g b efo re t he IJ. Seco nd , he c on te nd s t ha t t he BIA erre d i n d en y in g h is m ot io ns to reo pe n a nd
reco ns id er, as a vi sawas a va il ab le to hi m inJu ne an d J ul y

20 07
. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r co nt inua nc e fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Has wan ee v . U.S. Att’y

Gen., 4 71 F.3d12 12 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Whe n the BIA i ss ue s a d eci si on , we rev ie w on ly tha t d eci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atth e 7BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Here, the BIA is su edit s o wn d eci si on , affi rm in g t he IJ’s de ni al of C ha cku’s re qu es t fo r a co nt in ua nc e; th us , we rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on . The imm ig rat io n re gu la ti on s p ro vi de th atth e IJ m ay gra nta co nt in ua nc e

“ fo r go odcau se sh own .” 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 9. Se ct io n 2 45 (i) of t he INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( i), a ll owe d c ert ai n a li en s wh o wer e in el ig ib le to ad jus t t he ir s ta tu s t o p ay

a pe na lty fee fo r th e co nv en ie nc e o f ad jus ti ng th ei r st atus wit ho utlea vi ng th e Uni te d St at es . This pro vi si on ha s ex pi red , bu t Ch acku was “ gr an df athe red ” in be cau se an ap pl ic at io n fo r a l ab orcert ifi cat io n was fil edon hi s b eh al f on or b efo re Ap ril 30 , 20 01 , whi ch was app ro vabl e whe n fi le d. Se e INA § 2 45 (i) (1 )(B) (ii ), § 12 55 (i) (1 )(B) (ii ). Sect io n 1 25 5( i)( 2) pro vi de s: (2 ) Upo n re cei ptof [ anad jus tm en t] app li cat io n a ndth e su m he reb y requi red , th e Att orne y

Gene ral m ay

ad jus t t he st atus of t he ali ento th atof a n a li enlawf

ul ly adm it te d fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e if
-- (A) th e al ie n i s el ig ib le to rece iv e an im m ig ran t v is a an d i s ad m is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e; an d (B) a n i m m ig ran t v is a is imm ed ia te ly avai labl e to th e al ie n a t t he ti m e th e ap pl ic at io n i s fi le d. INA § 2 45 (i) (2 ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (i) (2 ). An ap pl ic an t fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus als o
m us t m eetth e o th er s ta tu to ry eli gi bi li ty requ ire m en ts of I NA § 2 45 (a), wh ic h pr ov id es th at , in th e cas e o f an ali enlawf ul ly adm it te d i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s, s uc h
8al ie n m ay

ad jus t h is st atus “ if ( 1) th e al ie n m ak es anap pl ic at io n fo r su ch ad jus tm en t, (2 ) th e al ie n i s el ig ib le to rece iv e animm ig ran t v is a an d i s ad m is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e, an d (3 ) an imm ig ran t v is a is imm ed ia te ly avai labl e to hi m at t he ti m e h is ap pl ic at io n i s fi le d.” INA § 2 45 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a) (e m

ph as is ad de d) . To be “ el ig ib le ” to rece iv e an em pl oym en tba se d i m m ig rat io n v is a, an ali enm us t fi le anI-1 40 pe ti ti on , alo ng wit h “ an ap pr ov edlab orcert ifi cat e,” wh ic h C ha cku d idin th is cas e. See Zaf ar v . U.S. Att’y Gen ., 46 1 F .3d12 57 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); 8 C.F.R. § 20 4.5 (a)( 2) , (3)
. InMerc ha ntv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 61 F.3d13 75 , 13 76 -7 7, 1 38 0 (1 1t h C ir. 20 06 ), on whi ch Ch acku re li es , we hel d tha t t he de ni al of aco nt in ua nc e am ou nt ed to anab us e o f di sc ret io n b ecau se , at t he ti m e th atth e al ie n m ov edfora
co nt in ua nc e, he ha d: (1) anap pr ov edlab orcert ifi cat e; (2) anim m ed ia te ly
av ai labl e v is a num

be r; ( 3) fil edanem

pl oym en t-b as edvi sape ti ti on ; an d (4 ) fi le d
anad jus tm en t o f st atus ap pl ic at io n. We exp la in edth atth e al ie n’s ad jus tm en t o f st atus eli gi bi li ty w as no t t oo sp ecu la ti ve be cau se he ha d d on e ev erythi ng st atut or il y

requi redof h im

un de r § 2 45 (i) , andth e o nl y th in g s ta nd in g b etween hi m an d p erm an en t re si de ntst atus was t he ag en cy ’s app ro va l o f hi s
em pl oym en t-b as edvi sape ti ti on an d a dju st m en t o f st atus ap pl ic at io n. Id . at 1 37 8- 79 . W e al so no te d t ha t, b ecau se th e al ie n h adco m pl ie d wi th all of the
9requi rem en ts “ as of t he ti m e o f th e IJ he ari ng ,” th e IJ ab us edhi s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g t he co nt in ua nc e. Id . at 1 37 9. Si m il arl y , in Haswa ne e, we he ldth atanIJ ab us edhi s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g am ot io n fo r co nt in ua nc e fi le d b y anali enwho ha d: (1) anap pr ov edlab orcert ifi cat e; (2) animm ed ia te ly avai labl e v is a num be r;
an d (3 ) fi le d a n I- 14 0 p et it io n fo r an em pl oym en t-b as edvi sa . Haswan ee, 4 71 F.3d at12 17 -1 9. Inth is cas e, th e IJ di d n otab us e h is di sc ret io n i n d en y in g t he m ot io n fo r a
co nt in ua nc e, no r di d t he BIA err i n d is m is si ng Ch acku’s ap pe al , bec au se Ch acku
was no t s ta tu to ril y

eli gi bl e fo r an ad

jus tm en t o f st atus on Decem be r 7, 2 00 6, t he da y he fil edhi s ad

jus tm en t ap pl ic at io n, as he di d n otha ve animm ig ran t v is a imm ed ia te ly avai labl e to hi m at t hi s t im e. W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. As sa ’ad v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 32 F.3d13 21 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Reg ard in g C ha cku’s m ot io n t o re m an d, wh ic h i nt ro du cedne w evi de nc e, “ if a
m ot io n t o re m an d s eek s t o i nt ro du ce ev id en ce tha t h as no t p rev io us ly been pr es en te d, i t i s g en eral ly treat edas am ot io n t o re op enun de r” 8 C.F.R. § 1 00 3.2 (c). See id . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enforan ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gb ay a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 42 F.3d12 19 , 12 20 (11 th Cir
. 20 03 ).
10It i s wi th in th e d is cret io n o f th e BIA t o d en y a m ot io n t o re op enforat l eas t th ree r eas on s: “ (1 ) fai lu re t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e [o f el ig ib il it y for ad jus tm en t o f st atus ]; (2) fai lu re t o i nt ro du ce ev id en ce t ha t was m at eri al an d pr ev io us ly una va il ab le ; an d (3 ) a d et erm in at io n t ha t d es pi te th e al ie n’s s ta tu to ry el ig ib il it y forrel ie f, he or s he is no t en ti tl edto a fav or ab le ex erci se of d is cret io n.” Al Najjar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 30 2. In Mat te r of Bri on es , onwhi ch Ch acku re li es , th e BIA aff irmed th e p rin ci pl e an no un cedin a pr io r cas e, ho ld in g t ha t “ [b ]ecaus e th e [al ie n] ha d acu rren t p rio rit y da te when he subm it te d h is ad jus tm en t ap pl ic at io n t o th e [IJ ], he is no t re nd eredin el ig ib le forsu ch rel ie f by virtu e o f th e subs eque nt ret ro gr es si on of h is pri or it y da te , alt ho ug h fi na l ap pr ov al of t he ap pl ic at io n wo ul d ha ve to be he ldinab ey an ce.” 2 4 I& N Dec. at 3 57 n.3
. Here, i t i rrel ev an t t ha t a v is a was av ai labl e to Ch acku i n J un e an d J ul y 20 07 , as th e rel ev an t d at e fo r de te rm in in g wh ethe r a v is a was av ai labl e is th e d at e o n whi chhe fil edhi s ad

jus tm en t o f st atus ap pl ic at io n, i n t hi s ca se Decem be r 7, 2 00 6. See I NA § 2 45 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a). Ch acku d idno t h av e a cu rren t p rio rit y da te fo r a v is a atth atti m e b ecau se th e cu rren t p rio rit y da te forth e type o f vi safor whi chhe qu al ifi edwas M ay 1, 2 00 1; th eref

or e, he was n otsi m il arl y

si tu at edto th e
res po nd en t i n B rio ne s. PETITIONS DENIED.
11