2009 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 11-23-2009 

# Eulogio C ordova 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 . 08-3604

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Eulo gio C or dova v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 219. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/219NOT 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. 08- 3604

___________ E UL OGI O C OR DOVA, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

___________________________________ 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 ( A gencyN o. A 75- 847- 379) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember18, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: N ovember23, 2009)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerE ul ogi o C or dova i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of B ol i vi a. H e s eeks r evi ew of bot h a fi nal or derof r emoval , ent er ed w i t houthi s pr i orat t orneypr es ent , and the deni al of t hatat t or ney ’ s cont i nuance r eques t . Forthe r eas ons gi ven bel ow , w e conc l ude thattheC or dova w as char ged w i t h bei ng an al i en pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w i t hout 1 ad m issi o n o r pa role, i n v iolati o n o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (a)(6)(A )(i ). T he I J and both par t i es r epea t edl ym i s s pel l Schackne r ’ s fi r s tand l as tname as 2 “ H a rl a n d S h a k n e r.” 2 Im m i grat i on Judg e (“I J”) did not abuse his dis cret i on i n d eny i ng the co nti nu ance requ est and s ubs equent l yor der i ng C or dova r emoved. A s a r es ul t , i tw as noti m pr operforthe B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) to a d o p t an d a f f irm th e IJ’ s d e c isio n p u rsu a n t to M at t erof B urbano, 20 I . & N . D ec. 872 ( B I A 1994) , and w e w i l l denyC or dova’ s pet i t i on f o rr e v i e w. I. C or dova ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i t houti ns pect i on i n J anuary1989. D H S w as al er t ed t o hi s pr es ence w hen C or dova appl i ed for , and w as deni ed, an adj us t m entof s t atus i n J anuary2004. R emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed i n N ew ark, N ew J er s ey , and the f irst h e a rin g b e f

o re th e IJ w a s in Ju n e 2 0 0 4 . T h e IJ c o n tin u e d p ro c e e d in g s u n til 1 Sept ember2004, t o gi ve C or dova t i m e t o hi r e an a t t orney . A ta hea r i ng on Sept ember23, 2004, C or dova appe ar ed w i t h an att orneynamed H ar l an Schac kner . T he I J cont i nued 2 pr ocee di ngs unt i l February2005, t o perm i tSchackne rt i m e t o r evi ew the document s and pr epar e an a ppl i cat i on forr el i ef. T he nexthear i ng befor e the I J w as hel d on February3, 2005. A tthatt i m e, Schackne rar gued thatC or dova w as ent i t l ed t o r el i ef be caus e of hi s ant i ci pat ed adj us t m entof s t atus , w hi ch w as al t ernat i vel ybas ed on a pe ndi ng I - 130 Pet i t i on forA l i enT he I - 130 pet i t i on w as eventual l yw i t hdr aw n beca us e C or dova and hi s w i fe ha d 3 s e p a ra te d . Sect i on 245( i ) of the i m m i gr at i on s t atut e, i t s el f a pr ovi s i on of the Legal I m m i gr at i on 4 Fam i l yE qui t y( “LIFE”) A ct , “ena bl ed ce r t ai n al i ens unl aw ful l ypr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es t o payan appl i cat i on fee and r emai n [t ] her e w hi l e s eeki ng t o adj us tthei rs t atus b ase d o n em p loym en t. ” K h an v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 4 8 F . 3 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 9 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). G onzal ez’ ful l name i s r epea t edl ym i s s pel l ed bythe I J and both part i es as ei t her 5 “ G e ra rd G o n z a le s ” o r “ G e ra rd G o n z a le z .” A ccor di ng t o t he r ecor d, G onzal ez w as r et ai ned byC or dova on J anuary5, 2009, and 6 on t hatdayhe r eques t ed “a n adj our nm entof thi s m at t ers o [he] coul d r evi ew the fi l e. ” T h e IJ d e n ie d G o n z a le z ’ r e q u e s t. 3 R el at i ve, fi l ed byC or dova’ s U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen w i fe, and a pe ndi ng § 245( i ) l abor 3 cert i fi cat i on. B eca us e Schac knerw as unpr epar ed t o el abor at e upon ei t herappl i cat i on,

4 t he I J cont i nued pr ocee di ngs and s chedul ed a mer i t s hear i ng forJ ul y22, 2005. T he h e a rin g w a s re sc h e d u led b yth e IJ to Ja n u a ry2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , an d C o rd o v a a p p e a re d o n th a t d a te w i t h a new at t or ney , J er ar d A . G onzal ez. A tthe hea r i ng, G onzal ez r eques t ed hi s s econd 5 cont i nuance , t hi s t i m e bas ed on hi s bel i ef thatC or dova’ s l aborcert i fi cat i on w as t o be pr oces s ed “w i t hi n a mont h ort w o. ” W i t h r el uct ance , the I J cont i nued the ca s e unt i l J une 6 22, 2006, m aki ng i tcl eart o C or dova and G onzal ez thatthe pr os pect s of another c o n t i n u a n c e we r e g r i m: T he ca s e w i l l end one w ay or another i n J une. D oes n’ t m att er i f y ou get si ck and y ou can’t be here. D oesn’t m at t er i f y ou c h a n g e d law y ers . N o th in g m a tters , the c a se w ill e n d . A n d e ith e r y o u ’ll b e o n y o u r w a yto gr een c ar d ory ou’ l l be on y ourw ayback t o B ol i vi a. (A . R . 8 8 . )4

O n J une 12, 2006, G onzal ez s ubm i t t ed a c ont i nuance r eques tt o t he I J beca us e he pl anned t o at t end the annua l A m er i can I m m i gr at i on L aw y er s A s s oci at i on ( “A I L A ”) c o n f e re n c e f ro m J u n e 2 0 to J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , in S a n A n to n io . T h e IJ d e n ie d th e re q u e s t. Cor d o v a a p p e a r e d a tt h e J u n e 2 2 h e a r i n g wi t h o u tGon z a l e z , who h a d g o n e t o th e AI LA c o n f e re n c e . T h is e x c h a n g e e n su e d : Ju d g e : I to ld M r. G o n z a le[ z ] th a t I w a s n o t g o in g to a d jo u rn th is hear i ng foranyr eas on. I t ol d y ou t hat t oo, but I gues s he d ec ided that the tri p w as m o re im p o rt an t . . . A n d w e’re goi ng t o go ahea d w i t hout hi m . N ow t he onl yques t i on I have f ory ou i s , do y ou w antvol unt aryd ep arture ordo y o u w a n t [ a ] d e p o rta tio n o rd e r? A n d w e talk e d a b o u t th is b e f o re , so it sh o u ld b e n o s u r p r ise to y o u . W h a t w o u ld y ou l i ke t o do? C or dova: W el l s i nce m y law y er is n ot pr es ent I don’ t know w hat

opt i on t o t ake. J udge: O kay . W el l I ’ l l gi ve y o u a d eport at i on or der , then y ou

c a n d i s c u s s wh a ty o u wa n tt o d o wi t h h i m. C o rd o v a : O k a y . (A . R . 91 -92. ) Th us, t he IJ or dered t hat C ordov a be rem ov ed from the U nit ed S t at es. T h e B IA a d o p te d a n d a f f ir m e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n , a n d d is m is s e d C o rd o v a ’s a p p e a l. I tr ej ect ed C or dova’ s ar gum entt hatthe I J abus ed hi s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng the J une 12 cont i nuance r eques t . T he B I A echoe d t he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs that“[Cordova ’ s ] cas e has been pendi ng . . . for2 y ear s , t her e i s no evi dence thatanyr el i ef i s avai l abl e t o [C or dova] , and [C or dova] had bee n i nform ed att he pr evi ous hear i ng thathe w oul d be gi ven the cha nce t o a p p l yo n l yf

o rv o l u n t a r yd e p a r tu r e u n l e s s h e c o u l d e s t a b l i s h h i s e l i g i b i l i t yf o rs o me5

f o rm o f re lief.” T h e B IA a lso sta ted th a t [t]he o n lyrea so n g iven fo r the co n ti n u an ce req u est w as c o u n sel’s de sir e t o at t end a c onfer en ce o n tha tdat e. H ow ever , couns el had know n of t he J une 22, 2006, hear i ng dat e for 5 m onths , and he has notexpl ai ned w hyhe w ai t ed u nti l j ust9 d ay s befo re the sche du l ed h eari ng t o reque st a cont i nuance t o al l ow hi m t o at tend an annual eventw hi ch he p re s u m a b ly h a d k n o w n o f f o r q u ite s o m e tim e . ( A . R . 3. ) T he B I A concl uded thatC or dova coul d notes t abl i s h t he r equi s i t e pr ej udi ce f or a due pr oces s cl ai m , and thati n anyeventC or dova had not“compl i ed w i t h t he condi t i ons s etfor t h i n M at t erof Lozada, 19 I . & N . D ec. 637 ( B I A ) , . . . foran i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n s e l c l a i m. ” Co r d o v a f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 547 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e al s o have “j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew an I J ’ s deci s i on t o denya cont i nuance , ” and w e do s o underan

“ a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n ” s ta n d a rd . H a s h m i v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 3 1 F .3 d 2 5 6 , 2 5 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e w i l l onl yr ever s e i f the I J ’ s deci s i on t o denythe r eques ti s arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal or contr aryt o l aw . See Ti pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . A ddi t i onal l y , w her e, as her e, t he B I A expr es s l yadopt s and af fi rm s the I J ’ s deci s i on pur s uantt o M att erof B u rb a n o , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . at 8 7 4 (B IA m a ya d o p t o r a f f irm IJ’ s d e c isio n , in w h o le o r in par t , w hen i ti s i n agr eementw i t h r eas oni ng and r es ul tof thatdeci s i on) , w e r evi ew the d e c isio n o f

b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to d e f e r to6

the IJ w as a p p rop ri ate. Se e S h eh u v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 2 F . 3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). III . C o rd o v a se ts f

o rth tw o a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l: 1 ) “ [ t]h e [ IJ] a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in d e n y i n g p r i o rc o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n f o ra c o n t i n u a n c e t o a t t e n d th e n a t i o n a l o ra n n u a l [ AI L A] co n fe ren ce in S an A n ton io, T ex as o n Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 ”; an d 2 ) “the Im m igrati o n C o u rt vi ol at ed [hi s ] fai rhear i ng and due pr oces s r i ght s byor der i ng hi m r emoved w i t houtthe p re s e n c e o f

h is c o u n s e l.” (P e t. B r. a t 8 .) W e a d d re s s th e s e a rg u m e n ts in tu rn . A n IJ m ay , i n h i s di scr et i on , “granta m oti on for con t i nu ance f or goo d cau se s how n. ” K han, 448 F. 3d at230 ( quot i ng 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 29 ( 2006) ) . W hetherthe deni al of thatm ot i on cons t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on “ca nnotbe dec i ded thr ough t he a p p lica tio n o f

b rig h t-line ru les ; itm u st b e re so lv e d o n a c a se b yc a se b a sis a c c o rd in g to t he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of ea ch ca s e. ” Ponce- L ei va v. A s hcr oft , 331 F. 3d 369, 377 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B utw e nee d notas s es s thos e ci r cumst ance s i n a vac uum ; ourpr ece denti n t hi s ar ea of fer s gui dance t o w hi ch w e now turn. W e have hel d t hati ti s an abus e of di s cr et i on foran I J t o denya cont i nuance r eques t“bas ed s ol el yon conce r ns aboutthe amountof t i m e r equi r ed t o r es ol ve [the] cas e. ” H as hm i , 531 F. 3d at260. T hati s nott o s aythata ca s e maybe pr ol onged i nd efi nit el y . In K han , t he p et i t i on er, l i ke C ordov a i n the i nst ant m at t er, soug ht t o ad j ust h is s tatu s p u rsu a n t to th e L IF E A c t an d , at th e tim e o f h is a tto rn e y ’s c o n tin u a n c e re q u e st, there w as a p en d ing labo r ce rt ifi ca ti o n . S ee 4 4 8 F . 3 d at 22 9 . W e c o n clud ed that the IJ7

di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng thatcont i nuance r eques tbeca us e a l abor cert i fi cat i on i s onl yt he fi r s tof thr ee s t eps forobt ai ni ng an i m m i gr antvi s a, s ee i d. at228 n. 2, and K han coul d nots how “thata vi s a i s ‘ i m m edi at el yavai l abl e’ t o hi m oreven that o n e [ w o u ld] b e a v ail ab le t o h im at so m e e sti m ab le t im e in th e f u ture.” Id. at 23 5 . In Ponce- L ei va, w e conc l uded thatt he I J di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng an at t or ney ’ s cont i nuance r eques t , fi l ed tw o day s befor e a mer i t s hear i ng thatthe att orney had know n aboutforei ghtm ont hs , w her e the att orney ’ s r eques tw as pr edi cat ed s ol el yon h is d e s ir e to g o to S a n D ie g o . S e e 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 3 7 5 . T h i s c a s e i s s i mi l a rt o b o t h Kh a n a n d P o n c e - L e i v a i n a f e w i mp o r t a n tr e s p e c t s . As i n t he l at t ercas e, C or dova’ s at t or neys ubm i t t ed hi s cont i nuance r eques tj us tday s befor e a hear i ng t hathad bee n s chedul ed s ever al m onths befor ehand. M or eover , i n bot h PonceL ei va and the i ns t antm at t er , t he pr offe r ed r eas ons forthe cont i nuance r eques t s w er e not o f a n em erg en t or o b li g atoryn ature . W h il e w e a re so m ew h at sym p athe ti c to C o rdo v a’s ar gum entt hat“[t ] he I J coul d have c arr i ed [the hea r i ng] overtw o w eeks ” bec aus e the confe r ence w as t o l as tonl yfourday s , ( Pet . B r . at12) , w e nonethel es s do nots ee how C or dova’ s pos i t i on w oul d have be en i m pr oved bys uch a s hor tpos tponement . L i ke the al i en i n K han, t her e i s no avai l abl e r el i ef on the hor i zon forC or dova, onl ys pecul at i ve a d j u s t me n to f

s t a tu s f o rwh i c h h e i s s t i l l i n th e o p e n i n g s t a g e . Gi v e n th e s e f a c t s , we cannots ayt hatt he I J ’ s deni al of the cont i nuance r eques tw as arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal or c o n t r a r yt o l a w.8

N orw as i ta vi ol at i on of C or dova’ s due pr oces s r i ght s forthe I J t o conductthe J une 2006 mer i t s hear i ng w i t houtG onzal ez pr es ent . T o es t abl i s h a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, C or dova mustnotonl ys how an abus e of di s cr et i on, butal s o t hatthe abus e ca us ed ac tual pr ej udi ce. See M or gan v. A t t ’ yG en. , 432 F. 3d 226, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e fi nd no s uch a b u se in th is c a se . S e e P o n c e -L e iv a , 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 3 7 6 (“ C o u n se l’s f a ilu re to d isc h a rg e h is dut i es di d notm ean thatPonce- L ei va’ s ‘ r i ghtt o couns el ’ w as vi ol at ed; Ponce- L ei va w as sim p lyth e v ictim o f

p o o r la w y e rin g ” .) T o th a t en d , w e h a v e sta ted th a t “it is re a so n a b le a n d p ro p e r f

o r a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e to c o n sid e r th e a p p a re n t lac k o f m e rit in a c laim w hen dec i di ng t o pr ocee d w i t houtcouns el . ” I d. at377. W e thus agr ee w i t h t he G o v ern m en t th at C o rdo v a “ ca n n o t dem o n str ate tha t he w as p rejud iced [b ythe IJ’s c o n d u c tin g th e h e a rin g in th e a b se n c e o f c o u n se l] b e c a u se h e c a n n o t sh o w th a t h e is el i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t atus . ” ( G ov’ tB r . at21- 22. ) M or eover , thatcouns el ’ s abs ence di d notpr ej udi ce Cordova notonl ydoom s hi s due pr oces s cl ai m , butal s o nece s s i t at es t he fai l ur e of a nyi neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m . See Ponce- L ei va, 331 F. 3d at377- 7 8 . T her efor e, beca us e w e conc l ude thatthe I J di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n t he p roc ee d ing s b elow , w e a lso c o n clud e tha t th e B IA d id n o t err i n af firm ing the IJ’s deci s i on pur s uantt o M at t erof B urbano. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for re v ie w .