2005 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 8-12-2005 

# P atel 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 . 03-4412

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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
" P at el v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 706. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/706T he H onor abl e D i cki ns on R . D ebevoi s e, Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe * D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

INT H EU

N IT E D S T A T E S C O URTO F AP P E A LS F O R T H ET H IRD C IRC U IT C as e N o. 03- 4412 M I NESH H. PATEL, Pet i t i oner

V.
* AL BE RT O R . GONZ AL E S , AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , R es pondent *Pur s uantt o F. R . A . P. 43( c) O n p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f a fin al ord er o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Fi l e N o. A 75- 774- 184 Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o L A R 34. 1( a) N ovember19, 2004
B e f o re : R O T H a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DEB EVO I SE, D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge .

M i nes h H as m ukh Pat el i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G r eatB r i t ai n w ho r ece i ved thr ee cont i nuance s fr om an i m m i gr at i on j udge dur i ng deport at i on pr ocee di ngs , and pet i t i ons for
rev iew o f th e IJ’s d en ial o f a fo u rth co n ti n u an ce . W e d o n o t r ea ch the m erit s o f P atel’s
c l a i m th a tth e I J a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g th e f o u r th c o n t i n u a n c e b e c a u s e we concl ude thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew an I J ’ s deni al of a c ont i nuance i n a r emoval p ro c e e d in g .

I. P a tel w a s a d m itt e d to th e U n ited S tate s a s a n o n -im m ig ra n t v isito r f o r p lea su re in 1 9 8 2 . H e o v e rsta y e d h is s ix -m o n th v isa , an d o n th a t b a sis th e IN S f iled a N o tice to A p p e a r in 1 9 9 9 . In M a y2 0 0 0 , at h is f irst d e p o rta tio n h e a rin g , P a tel a d m itt e d to sta y in g in the U ni t ed St at es l ongerthan perm i t t ed, eff ect i vel yconce di ng deport abi l i ty . T he I J not ed thatPat el had no qual i fy i ng r el at i ves t o s uppor tan appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of
r emoval , but , not i ng thatPat el had bee n i n the U ni t ed St at es form anyy ear s , offe r ed P atel’s co u n sel rou g h lyfiv e m o n ths to d eterm ine w h ethe r reli ef b esid es v o lun tary departur e w as avai l abl e. I n ear l yO ct ober2000, tw o w eeks befor e Pat el ’ s nexts chedul ed hea r i ng w i th the IJ, th e IN S in f

o rm e d P a tel’s m o th e r th a t sh e h a d e sta b lish e d h e r c laim f o r m e m b e rsh ip in3

a cl as s of al i ens w ho att empt ed t o fi l e a l egal i zat i on appl i cat i on betw een M ay1987 and M ay1988 butw hos e appl i cat i ons w er e r efus ed. A s t atut e ena ct ed i n D ece m ber2000, t he L egal I m m i gr at i on and Fami l yE qui tyA ct( L I FE A ct ) , al l ow ed ce r t ai n m ember s of the class to a d

just th eir st atus d u ri n g a tw elve -m o n th p eriod to b eg in af ter regu lat ion s w ere i s s ued. T he s t atut e al s o offe r ed pr ot ect i on forqual i fy i ng s pous es and unmar r i ed chi l dr en of class act i on cl ai m ants . P at el ’s m other , and P at el i n d eri vati ve fa shi on , soug ht t o ad j ust th e irs ta tu s u n d e r t h e L IF E A c t. In m id-O ctob er 2 0 0 0 , P atel ap p ea red fo r his sec o n d d ep o rt ati o n h ea ri n g . P atel’s l aw y erw as abs ent . T he I J expl ai ned thatthe l aw y erw as i n N ew Y or k, and not ed that

“ th e re re a llyh a s b e e n n o th in g d o n e b yth e a tto rn e yto tryto h e lp th is y o u n g m a n so lv e h is pr obl ems. ” The I J encour aged Pat el ’ s father , w hom the I J had “c al l ed i n, ” t o getPat el an i m m i gr at i on l aw y eri n Pi t t s bur gh beca us e “the r es pons i bi l i tyi s the fa therand the mot her [ s ic ] t o g e t le g a l s ta tu s a n d th e n m a yb e re s p o n d e n t c o u ld d e ri v e s o m e th in g th ro u g h it.” P a t e l ’ s f a th e rh a d e x p l a i n e d th a tP a t e l ’ s mo th e rwa s “ try i n g t o g e ts t a tu s th r o u g h L UL AC [i. e., the c lass claim fo r ali en s d iscu ssed ab o v e], bu t i t has n ’th ap p en ed y et. ” T h e IJ pos tponed Pat el ’ s cas e unt i l A pr i l 2001, butw arned hi m thati f nothi ng w as happeni ng wi th h i s c a s e h e mi g h tb e o r d e r e d d e p o r t e d , “ [ n ] o ti n Ap r i l , b u tp r o b a b l ys o me t i me th e re a f te r.” A tthe s chedul ed A pr i l 2001 hear i ng, Pat el ’ s att orneyt ol d the I J that“ther e have been s om e cha nges i n t he l aw ” governi ng the LU L A C cl as s cl ai m thatm i ghtenabl e Pat el4

t o adj us thi s s t atus . O n thatbas i s , the I J cont i nued Pat el ’ s cas e unt i l O ct ober16, 2001. T w o m onths l at er , i n J une 2001, the I N S publ i s hed the r egul at i on pr om i s ed i n the D ecem ber 200 1 p res s r el ease est abli shi ng proced ures und er the L IFE A ctfor cert ai n clas s m ember s t o become l aw ful perm anentr es i dent s i n the U ni t ed St at es . T he r egul at i on pr ovi ded fora s t ayof r emoval and w or k author i zat i on forcert ai n s pous es and unmar r i ed chi l dr en of a l i ens el i gi bl e t o adj us ts t atus underthe s t atut e. I n A ugus t2001, the Pat el fami l yfi l ed an a ppl i cat i on forl egal i zat i on underthe L IF E A ct. A su b stan ti al po rt ion o f th eir ap p li ca ti o n is i n the re co rd, i n clud ing a f o rm en ti tl ed “A p p li ca ti o n fo r E m p loym en t A u tho ri za ti o n , ” w h ich re lat ed to P atel’s w o rk
a u th o riz a tio n a s a n u n m a rrie d c h ild o f a n a lien u n d e r th e L IF E A c t. In O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 , P a tel a p p e a re d a s s c h e d u led b e f o re th e IJ. “ W e w e re w a iti n g to s ee i f the r es pondentw oul d be i n a pos i t i on t o adj us thi s s t atus w i th hi s m other , w ho w as s eeki ng t o adj us thers t atus thr ough L U L A C , ” the I J began. H e not ed thatPat el ’ s att or ney sa id th e a d

ju stm e n t h a d n o t y e t b e e n a c c o m p lish e d , b u t “th e re h a s b e e n a n e f f o rt m a d e to h a v e th e re sp o n d e n t ap p lyin th a t re g a rd .” H o w e v e r, th e IJ d e ter m in e d th a t h e w o u ld
or derPat el vol unt ar i l yt o depart , fortw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , he not ed thataft erthr ee cont i nuance s , Pat el ’ s r emoval pr ocee di ngs had l as t ed fortw o y ear s , “and w e have n’ teven got t en an i ni t i al or derfr om the I m m i gr at i on C ourt . I don’ tthi nk that ’ s appr opr i at e. ” Second, the I J r eas oned thatthe del ayi n Pat el ’ s cas e ef fec t i vel ydeni ed the I N S t he r i ght t o pr os ecut e i t s cas e. H e adde d:W hi l e the I J ci t ed Ma ttero f L i f o r th is p ro p o sitio n , 1 3 I. & N . 6 2 8 (B IA 1 9 7 5 ), th is 1 cit ati o n ap p ea rs t o b e in e rror. A t th e v o lum e a n d p ag e n u m b er c it ed b ythe IJ f o r M at t er of Li , a ca s e ent i t l ed Mat t erof Zedkova appea r s , w hi ch i nvol ves an appl i cat i on for r efuge e s t atus under§ 203( a) ( 7) of the I N A . 13 I . & N . D ec. 628. T her e i s a M at t e rof Li publ i s hed at20 I . & N . 700 ( B I A 1993) , butthatdeci s i on appea r s t o ans w erthe ques t i on w hether“the par ent/ chi l d r el at i ons hi p betw een na tur al par ent s and chi l d[r en] s ur vi ve for im m ig ra tio n p u rp o se s w h e n a c h ild h a s b e e n a d o p ted .” 2 0 I. & N . at 7 0 3 . In sh o rt, nei thercas e appe ar s t o cont ai n the pr opos i t i on forw hi ch the I J ci t ed “ M at t e rof Li . ” 5 T her e’ s an adva nt age t o y ou and t o y ourcl i entbydoi ng i tthi s w ay , beca us e y o u ’re n o t g o in g to h a v e to c o m e b a c k h e re f o r a n ym o re h e a rin g s. If y o u a p p e a l it t o the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , cl ai m i ng thatI err ed bynotgi vi ng y ou fur thert i m e, the ca s e w i l l be ther e foratl eas ta y ear , m aybe l onger [, ] and, i n t he m eant i m e, y ou can tr yt o s ee i f y ou can qua l i fyhi m underthe pl an thaty ou have come up w i th, butI ’ m notgoi ng t o pos tpone the ca s e anyfur ther [; ] butbyent er i ng th is o rd e r to d a y , the re w ill b e n o im m e d iate c o n se q u e n c e p ro v id e d th a t y o u a p p e a l. T he I J ’ s O r al D eci s i on s truck a f i r m ert one. H e expl ai ned thatr es pondents ought p o stp o n e m e n t o f

h is c a se so h e c o u ld o b tain leg a l sta tu s th ro u g h h is m o th e r’s m e m b e rsh ip i n the LU L A C cl as s . “I n acc or dance w i th r es pondent ’ s r eques t , ” the I J s t at ed, he had gr ant ed thr ee c ont i nuance s . H ow ever , byO ct ober2001 Pat el ’ s m others t i l l had not
o b tai n ed p erm an en t r esid en t st atus , an d there fo re P atel’s st atus h ad n o t cha n g ed . T h e IJ
r eas oned thathe coul d notpos tpone Pat el ’ s cas e aga i n beca us e the B I A had hel d thatan i m m i gr at i on courtm aynotw i thhol d act i on i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs on the bas i s of coll at eral vis a proceed i ng s. 1 “I n fac t , ” the I J cont i nued, “the r es pondenti s notthe bene fi ci aryof the appr oved vis a peti t i on w i th the curr ent vi sa num ber as of t he d at e of thi s deci si on . Inst ead, he has a t enuous cl ai m thathe mi ghtbe abl e t o acqui r e s t atus i f hi s m othercan a cqui r e s t atus thro u g h the L U L A C p rog ram . ” H av ing co n ti n u ed P atel’s r em o v al fo r tw o y ea rs, the IJPat el al s o att empt s , i n cur s oryfas hi on, t o m ake outan equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m bas ed on 2 hi s al l egat i on thatot heral i ens r ece i ved cont i nuance s on the dayhe r eques t ed, and w as d en ied, his fo u rth co n ti n u an ce . A s P atel do es n o t dev elop this argu m en t, w h ich a p p ea rs ent i r el yt o l ack mer i t , w e w i l l notdi s cus s i tfur theri n thi s opi ni on. 6 concl uded, “no furtherdel ayi n t hes e pr ocee di ngs i s j us t i fi ed underthe ci r cumst ance s . ” T he B I A us ed i t s s tr eaml i ni ng r egul at i ons t o aff i r m the r es ul t s of the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thout deci s i on. Pat el cl ai m s thatthe I J abus ed hi s di s cr et i on and vi ol at ed Pat el ’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s i n notgr ant i ng the fi nal cont i nuance . Pat el ar gues thathe s houl d notbe deport ed 2
w hi l e the governm entpr oces s es hi s l egal i zat i on appl i cat i on, part i cul ar l yas the g o v e rn m e n t, a c c o rd in g to P a te l, d e la y e d e n a c tm e n t o f th e L IF E A c t a n d its re g u la tio n s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t th e IJ d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n o r v io late P a tel’s rig h t to due pr oces s beca us e Pat el ’ s l egal i zat i on cl ai m w as t enuous , and af t ers ever al
c o n tin u a n c e s P a tel h a d d e m o n stra ted n o sig n if ica n t p ro g re ss in e sta b lish in g h is e lig ib ili ty f o r r e lie f. B oth part i es cl ai m thi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) , w hi ch pr ovi des forj udi ci al r evi ew of fi nal or der s of r emoval . Par t i es m aynotcr eat e s ubj ect
m att er jurisdicti o n b yag ree m en t, h o w ev er, an d the q u esti o n fo r th e C o u rtis w h ethe r a l at erpor t i on of thats ame subs ect i on pr ecl udes the C our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew deni al of a cont i nuance r es ul t i ng i n a fi nal or derof deport at i on. II. T he jur i sdi ct i on l i m i t i ng passage in quest i on provides:W e ar e form al l ypet i t i oned t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof r emoval , w hi ch w as 3 based o n it s deci si on t o d efer t o the I J. In turn, w e “revi ew the IJ’ s deci si on t o assess w hetherthe B I A ’ s deci s i on t o defe rw as appr opr i at e. ” A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 5 4 9 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 7 N o tw ith sta n d in g a n yo th e r p ro v isio n o f law , n o c o u rt sh a ll h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew . . . (ii ) a n yo th e r d e c isio n o r a c tio n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l th e a u th o rity forw hi ch i s s peci fi ed underthi s s ubchapt ert o be i n the di s cr et i on of the A t t or ney G ener al , ot herthan the gr ant i ng of r el i ef unde rs ect i on 1158( a) of thi s t i t l e. 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2) (B ). W e t hu s m ustdeterm i ne w hetherthe IJ’ s deci si on w as a 3

“ d e c isio n o r a c tio n o f

th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l th e a u th o rityf o r w h ich is s p e c if

ied u n d e r th is
s u b c h a p te r t o b e in th e d is c re tio n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l.” W e h av e e x p lai n ed that IJs are d esig n ee s o f th e A tt o rne yG en era l, an d are g o v e rn e d b yp ro v isio n s o f law re g a rd in g th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. See U r ena- Tavar ezv. A sh c ro ft , 3 6 7 F .3 d 1 5 4 , 1 5 8 n .6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). H e n c e , the IJ’ s d e n ial o f a c o n tin u a n c e in th is c a s e c o n s titu te s a n a c tio n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l f o r p u rp o s e s o f

§ 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( B ). A ccor di ngl y , the ques t i on becomes w hetherthe author i tyforthatact i on w as “s peci fi ed under ” the s ubchapt erci t ed i n § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) t o be i n the di s cr et i on of the A t t orney G ener al . I f s o, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thatact i on. “T h e lan g u ag e ‘this su b ch ap ter’ i n the f o reg o ing p rov isi o n ref

ers to S u b ch ap ter II i n C hapt er12 of Ti t l e 8 of the U ni t ed St at es C ode . . . . ” Id
. at158. Subchapt erI I of the U n ite d S ta te s C o d e in c lu d e s s e c tio n s 1 1 5 1 -1 3 7 8 o f T itle 8 . F u rt h e r, [i ] m m i gr at i on j udges der i ve the di s cr et i onaryauthor i tyt o gr antordenym ot i ons f o r c o n tin u a n c e f

ro m 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (a )(1 ) (2 0 0 4 ), an d th is p ro v isio n is c o n tain e d w ith in su b c h a p ter 2 . T h is s e c tio n a u th o riz e s im m ig ra tio n ju d g e s to “conduc tr emoval pr ocee di ngs , ” 8 U . S. C . § 1229( a) ( a) ( 1) , and an i m pl ement i ng8

r egul at i on pr ovi des that“an i m m i gr at i on j udge maygr anta cont i nuance forgood ca u se sh o w n . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 9 (20 0 4 ). O y in kw a v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 7 6 F .3 d 7 9 7 , 7 9 9 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). S e e a lso Su b h a n v . A sh c ro ft , 383 F .3 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ O n e ‘a c tio n ’ th a t th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l is a u th o riz e d to t ake i n i m m i gr at i on m att er s i s t o conductr emoval pr ocee di ngs . . , w hi ch i m pl i es act i ng on r eques t s forcont i nuance s ; and s o w e ar e nots urpr i s ed thatan i m pl ement i ng r egul at i on p rov ides that ‘an im m igrati o n jud g e m ayg ran t a co n ti n u an ce fo r go o d ca u se sh o w n ’”); Y e rko v ich v . A sh c ro

ft , 381 F. 3d 990, 993 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( “A l though the s t atut es themsel ves do nots peci fi cal l yconfe rdi s cr et i on on the A t t orneyG ener al t o gr antordeny
a c o n ti n u an ce , the re g u lat ion s clea rl yco n fe r suc h d iscreti o n o n the IJ.”). W e have not ed that [t ] he s cope of

§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) has been the s ubj ectof s om e di s agr eementamong the court s of appe al s . Sect i on 1252 i s capt i oned “J udi ci al r evi ew of or der s of r emoval . ” The cour t s have ha d t o deci de w hetherthe pr ovi s i on s tr i ps court s of appea l fr om r evi ew i ng al l di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons oronl ythos e made i n the cont ext o f re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . U r ena- Tavar ez , 36 7 F . 3d at15 9. W e need no treach that i ssue t od ay , ho w ever, becau se the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatPat el w as i nel i gi bl e fora cont i nuance r es ul t ed i n a fi nal or derof
re m o v a l. Id . B eca us e the I J ’ s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on w as author i zed bya r egul at i on i m pl ement i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( a) ( 1) ( 2004) , w hi ch i s cont ai ned i n s ubchapt erI I of C hapt er12 of Ti t l e 8, w e hol d t hat§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) pr ecl udes ourr evi ew of the I J ’ s deni alT h is d e c is io n a c c o rd s w ith th e h o ld in g s b ytw o o f o u r s is te r c ir c u its . See Yerkovi ch , 4 3 8 1 F .3 d a t 9 9 5 ; Ony i n kwa , 3 7 6 F .3 d a t 7 9 9 . B uts ee Subhan , 383 F. 3d at595 ( r evi ew i ng m er i t s of deni al of cont i nuance aft ers t at i ng that , w hi l e § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) m aygener al l ybar re v iew o f

a c o n tin u a n c e g ra n ted in a re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g , “w e n e v e rth e les s th in k it unl i kel ythatC ongr es s , i nt endi ng, as i tcl ear l ydi d, t o ent i t l e i l l egal al i ens t o s eek a n adj us t m entof s t atus [underthe LIFE A ct ] , atthe s ame t i m e al s o i nt ended § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) t o pl ace bey ond j udi ci al r evi ew deci s i ons bythe i m m i gr at i on author i t i es that n u ll ifi ed the s tatu te. ”). 9 of Pat el ’ s r eques tfora fourth cont i nuance . 4 Fi nal l y , w e not e thatPat el cl ai m s the I J ’ s deni al of a f our th cont i nuance vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s , and w e ac know l edge thats ever al ci r cui t s have “ s ugges t ed that
court s r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons byi m m i gr at i on j udges i f a pet i t i onerhas demonstr at ed a s ubs t ant i al cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. ” S e e Oy i n kwa , 376 F .3 d a t 7 9 9 n .1 (c itin g , in te r a lia , Mo ra les V e n tu ra v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 )); Ca r r a n z a v . I NS , 2 7 7 F .3 d 6 5 , 7 3 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); T o r r e s -Ag u i la rv . I

NS , 246 F . 3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 1 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). E v en if w e w ere to ad o p t th is po sit ion , h o w ev er, P atel’s du e p roc ess c lai m see m s n o thing m o re tha n h is m erit s arg u m en t – tha t th e IJ
a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in d e n y in g P a tel’s m o tio n f o r a f o u rth c o n tin u a n c e – re f a sh io n e d in
cons t i tut i onal t erm s . A s s uch, w e dec l i ne t o “emas cul at e the door
- cl os i ng s t atut e by equat i ng [an a l l egedl y ] arbi tr aryrul i ng[] t o [a] deni al [] of due pr oces s . ” Subhan , 383 F .3 d a t 5 9 5 . S e e a l

s o Oy i n kwa , 376 F. 3d at799 n. 1 ( s t at i ng that“a pe t i t i onerm aynot cr eat e the j ur i s di ct i on thatC ongr es s chos e t o r emove si m pl ybycl oaki ng an abus e of d is c re tio n a rg u m e n t in c o n s titu tio n a l g a rb ” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). III .10

Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , Pat el ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.