The Honor able Da vid A. Ka t z , Un ited States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0902n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 18, 2006 No. 05-3993 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
HASSAN I BRAHI M ELHARAKE, Petitioner,

v. AL BER T O R. G O N Z A L E S, Attorney Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW F ROM THE B O A R D O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Before: CLAY and ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ges; and KATZ , District Judge. * ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge. Petitioner Hassan Ibrahim El Har ake, a L ebane se citizen living in the United States, marr ied Mirvat Masr i Aldera wi, a United States citizen, afte r t he United States g overnme nt b egan r emoval proc eeding s ag ainst him for oversta y ing his visa. At the r emoval pr oc e e din g s, El Ha

ra ke mov e d f

or a c on tin ua nc e be c a us e an I -1 30 pe tit ion

fi le d b y his wi fe on

his behalf was pe nding. T he I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) de nied this con tinuance be cause El Hara ke pr e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e th a t h is ma r r ia g e w a s b o n a f

id e . E l H ar a k e a

p p e a le d to th e B o a r d

of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) , and also filed a motion to remand. The BIA aff irmed the I J ’s denial of El Har ake’ s motion for continuance and denie d El Har ake’ s motion to rema nd. El Hara

ke thenNo. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

- 2 - fi le d a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w w iththi s c ourt arguin g a numbe r o f due pr oc e ss vio la tio ns a sso c ia te d w ith the re moval proce eding s. He a lso arg ues that the I J err ed by denying his motion for

continuance and that the B I A er

red by denying his motion to remand.

We d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f

o r r e v i e w . E l H ar a k e ’ s d u e p r o c e s s ar g u m e n t s ar e w i t h ou t me ri t be c a us e the I J g a ve him a

n op po rt un ity to b e he ard

and pr e se nt e vid e nc e a t th e re mov a l pr oc e e din g s. I n addition, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider El Hara ke’s a rg ument that he wa s denied due proce ss be cause of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel during the remova l pr ocee dings. El Ha rake did not raise that ar g ument until a m otion to reconsider , and El Ha rake did not file a petition for revie w of th e BI A’ s d ec i s ion denying that motion. Finally , the I J did not abuse her discretion by denying El Har ake’ s motion for continuance , and the B I A did not abuse its discretion by denying E l Har ake’ s motion t o rema

nd.

Bac kgr ound
El Har ake, a citizen of L ebanon, c ame to the United States on or about Dec ember

7, 1999,

on a no nim mig ra

nt B -2 vis a , w ithpe rm iss ion to r e ma in u

nti l June 6, 20 00 . E l H ara ke re ma ine d in the United States af

ter J une 6, 2000, and a fter r ece iving a Notice to Appe ar ( “NTA ”), a ppear ed befor e the I J for r emoval proc eeding s on November 26, 2002. At this hear ing, the I J told El Harake that he had a rig ht to counsel and continued the hear ing until F ebrua ry 27, 2004, so that El Hara ke

c ou ld o bta in c ouns e l.
On Ap ri l 24 , 2 00 3, El Ha

ra ke marr ie d A lde ra

wi , a Un ite d St a te s c iti zen . O n or a bo ut Aug us tNo. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

Th er e ar e t wo major steps that must occur befor e an a lien living in the United States c an 1 become a lawfu l p er m an en t resident by rea son of his marria g e to a U.S. citizen. First, the a lien’s spouse must file an I -130 petition with the Department of Homeland Security (“D HS”). The I -130 pe tit ion pr ov e s the re la tio ns hip be tw e e n the a lie n an d his ci tize n- sp ou se . Se c on d, the a lie n mu st f ile a F or m I -4 85 re qu e sti ngan a dju stm e nt t o th e a lie n’ s st a tus (i .e ., a djus tm ent from a lie n s ub je c t to remova l to lawful perma

nent re sident). Although E l Hara k e re ceive d an NTAprior to the initial hear ing he ld on November 26, 2 2002, the NTA that the I J ref err ed to during the Fe bruar y 27, 2004, hear ing a

ppear s to be a sec ond notice that the DH S filed on J anuar y 7, 2003. El Har ake, in his brief, states that he wa s serve d an NT A o n Apr il 2 8, 20 03 , b ut t he re c or d d oe s n ot s up po rt thi s f a c t. Wh ile thi s f

a c tua l di sp ari ty

wo uld contra dict the I J ’s finding that El Hara ke mar ried Ald er aw i af

ter he rec eived the N TA, El Har ake does not argue that he married Alderawi before he rece ived t he NTA , and thus it simpl y appea rs that the April 28, 2003 date in El Harake’s br ief wa s an er ror. El Ha ra ke wa s su bje c t to re mov a l un de r § 23 7( a )( 1) (B ) o f t he I mmi g ra

tio n a nd Natio na lity 3 Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1) (B ). I f an alien mar

ries a U .S. citiz en af

ter re moval proce eding s are broug ht ag ainst him, the 4 Attorney Gene ral c annot adjust the alien’ s status unless the alien prove s, by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, that the mar

riag e wa s bona fide. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(e); 1154(g ).

- 3 - 10, 2003, Aldera

wi filed an I -130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of El Har ake. Aldera

wi filed 1

a sec ond I -130 Petition on March 17, 2004, purpor tedly beca use of a “cle rica l error ” in the first I -130 petition.
On Fe bruar

y 27, 2004, the I J held a remova l hear ing, a t which El Har ake w as re prese nted by counsel. At the he aring , El Har ake acknow ledg ed that he re ceive d an NTA , conce ded that he w as 2 subject to remova l, and reque sted voluntary depar ture in lieu of deportation. El Harake ’s counse l 3 then re quested a

continuance beca

use of the pe nding I -130 peti t i on. The I J denied the motion for

co n t i n u an ce b ec au s e E l Ha ra k e p re s en t ed o n l y a m arri age ce rt i fi ca t e a s ev i d en ce t h at h i s m arri age to Aldera wi was bona

fide. The I J did gr ant El Har ake voluntar y depar ture. 4No. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

“AR” ref ers to the Certified Administrative Rec ord, which this cour t permitted El Har ake 5 to f il e in li e uo f a jo in t a p p e n d ix. - 4 - El Hara ke timely appea led the I J ’s orde r to the BI A. Befor e the B I A ac ted on the appe al, El Har ake f iled a Motion to Remand with the BIA, asking the BIA to rema nd the ca se to the I J so that El Hara ke could pr esent e vidence of the bona fides of his mar

riag e to A ldera

wi. El Hara

ke included with this m otion a copy

of the Mar ch 17, 2004, I -130 petit ion, as well as ex hibits purporting to show the bona f

ides of the mar

riag e (ta x returns, utility b i l l s , i n suranc e for ms, bank statements, and photogr aphs). The Gover nment opposed the motion to remand.
On J uly 8, 2005, the BI A affirmed the I J ’s order and denied El Harake ’s motion to remand. The B I A “a dopt[ ed] and aff irm[ed] t h e dec ision of the I mmigration J udg e finding [El Harake ]

su bje c t to re mov a l a s c ha

rg e d a nd de nyinghis re qu e st f

or an o pe n-ende d c on tin

ua nc e to a wa it a decision on a Petition for Alien Relative (I -130) fi l ed o n his behalf by his United States citiz en spouse.” AR 147. The BIA also denied El Har ake’ s motion t o rema nd beca use, “[i] n view of the 5 [DH S’ s] op po sit ion

to t he mot ion

and the a bs e nc e of an a

pp ro ve d vis a , [El Ha

ra ke wa s] un a

ble to demonstrate that remandingthe re cord f or adjustment of status [was] warra nted.” AR 147. On Aug ust 4, 2005, El Ha rake filed a Motion to R econside r with the B I A. Fir st, El Harake argued that the BIA err ed by aff irming the I J ’s orde r bec ause the BIA “ha d in its poss ession cruc ial evidenc e of the bona fide s of Mr. and Mrs. El Har ake’ s marria g e that wa s not presente d to the I J (due to ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel).” A R 33. Sec ond, El Har ake argued that he “ was the vic tim of the ineff ective a ssistance of his prior counsel . . . be cause the I J never had the oppor

tunity to considerNo. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

- 5 - the bona f

ides of his marr iag e, and the BIA fa iled to make a f inding of fac t as t o wh et h er M r. El Har ake e stablished the bona f ides of his marr iag e.” A R 33-34.
On No ve mbe r 1 , 2 00 5, the B I A de nie d El Hara ke ’s mot ion to re c on sid e r. F ir st, the B I A h e ld that its J uly

8, 2005, decision wa s corr ect be cause the I J “exerc ised sound discretion in deny ing” El Har ake’ s reque st for a continuance

. AR 3. Specifica lly , the B I A found that “ no purpose other than

an unnec essar

y delay of t he procee dings would have been se rved by a continuanc e” be cause there was “no indication as to how long it would take to conclude the adjudication of” El Har ake’ s I -130 petition, and because there was “no cer tainty ” that the petit ion “would re ceive approbation.” AR 2- 3. Second, the BIA held that El Har ake failed to c omply with the proce dural re quirements of In re Lozada , 19 I &NDec . 637, 639 (B I A), aff’d , 8 57 F .2 d 10 (1st Cir . 1 98 8) , w ithre sp e c t to his ineffe ctive-a ssistance-of

-c ounsel claims. Acc ording to the BIA, El Har ake w as re quired to g ive J ames Hoa

re, his for mer counsel, notice and an opportunit y to respond to the alleg ations befor e the alleg ations wer e prese nted to the BIA. Althoug h El Hara ke wr ote a letter

to Hoare descr ibing the

a lle g a tio ns on

July 28 , 2 00 5, the B I A he ld that El Ha ra ke did no t g ive Ho are an a de qu a te op po rt un ity to respond bef

ore f iling the motion to rec onsider with the B I A on Aug ust 4, 2005.
El Hara ke file d a Petition for Review w ith this court on August 5, 2005. The petition, there fore , was filed a fter the BIA’s initial decision aff irming the I J ’s ord er finding El Hara ke

remova ble and de nying E l Hara

ke’s motion to remand, but be fore the B I A’s dec ision d en y i n g El Har ake’ s motion t o rec onsider. The petition noted both that the motion to reconsider ha d been f iled with the BIA and that the motion included a claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. How ever ,No. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

- 6 - El Ha ra ke did no t f ile a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w af

te r the B I A’ s Nov e mbe r 1, 200 5, de c isi on de nyinghis motion to reconsider.
Discussion
1. El Ha

ra ke ’s Du e Pr oc e ss C la ims

E l H ar a k e m a k e s t h r e e d

u e p r o c e s s ar g u m e n t s o n a p p e a l

. F i r s t , E l H ar a k e ar g u e s t h a tt h e IJ vio la te d his du e pr oc e ss ri g hts by de nying him an o pp or tun ity to p re se nt e vid e nc e , in te rr up tin g his counsel duringthe re moval proce eding s, and deny ing hi m an o p p o rt unity

to cre ate a

rec ord for

a pp e a l. Se c on d, El Ha

ra ke argue s tha t the I J and B I A vio la te d h is d ue pr oc e ss r ig hts by

fa ili ngto comply with statutes and re g ulations gove rning how the I J and BI A should conduct he aring s and appea ls. Third, El Hara

ke ar g ues that hi s due process rights wer e violated be cause his counsel at the

re mov a l pr oc e e din g wa s in e ff e c tiv e . E a c h o f t

he se argume nts is w ith ou t me ri t.

a. Opportunity to Present Evide nce
Th e I J di d no t violate El Ha ra ke ’s du e pr oc e ss r ig hts be c a us e El Ha ra ke ha d a n a de qu a te opportuni t y

to present e vidence at his removal pr ocee ding. A n alien in a r emoval proc eedinghas a rig ht to a full and fa ir hea ring . El Hara

ke had suc h an opportunity , during which his c ounsel stated that th e on ly

e vid e nc e he ha d o f t

he bo na fi de s o f E l H ara

ke ’s marr ia g e wa s the marr ia g e c e rt if ic a te i t s el f. AR 3 1 8

. Be ca u s e E l Ha ra k e d i d n o t at t em p t t o o ff er ad d i t i o n al ev i d en ce d

u ri n g t h e h ea ri n g, the I J did not deny

him the opportunity

to present e vidence

. See G ilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275,No. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

Th e e xch ang e El Ha

ra ke c omp la ins a

bo ut w a s a s f

oll ow s: 6 Q: And all we ha

ve is a mar

riag e ce rtificate ? A: That’s all I have at this pa rticular time. I concur with all of those statements, but I think that the hea ring on the I -130, we have to produc e whatever documentar

y evidenc e we have at that time. Q: Well that’s fine, but if y ou’re seeking a continuance for adjudication of t he I -130, y ou have to establish that, or there ’s prima fa cie e vidence that there ’s a g ood faith marr iag e. A: An d I ’v e a tta c he d th e on ly do c ume nts that I

have a t th is p oin t – Q: Then I

find that y ou haven’ t established, or (indisce rnible) that there is a presumption that marria g e af

ter the inc eption of proc eeding s is one for the pur pose of obtaining I mmigration be ne fi t. Ic an g ive y ou

12 0- da y s v olu nta ry de pa rt ur e tod ay , if

the re sp on de nt w a ive s a

pp e a l. A: No , I ’l l do me ri t. Q: All rig ht, then we’ ll go to a se parate tape f or an or al dec ision. AR 318.
El Hara

ke’s r eliance upon Po dio v . I NS , 1 5 3 F

. 3 d

5 0 6 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) i s u n a v a i l i n g . In 7 Po dio , th e Se ve nth

Cir c uit he ld t hat an I J viol a te d Po dio ’s du e pr oc e ss r ig hts by re pe a te dly interrupting Podio, st ating that he d i d n o t “wa nt to hear a

ny thing” about ce rtain topics, and - 7 - 290 (6th Cir. 2005) (stating that beca use petitioners did not attempt to make a closing statement during a hea

ring , “it is not fair to say

that the I J denied them a n opportunity

to present one ”).

Nor did the I J violate El Har ake’ s due proce ss r ights by interrupting his c ounsel during the pr oc e e din g . E l H ara

ke argue s th a t th e I J inte rr up te d El Ha

ra ke ’s c ouns e l w he n h is c ouns e l tr ie d to explain that other evidenc e existed, but was si m p ly not available at the hear ing. This court has 6

rec og nized that “mere intimi dation or interr uptio n by a judg e does not re nder a hear ing unf

air.” Ahmed v . Gonzales , 3 9 8 F. 3 d 7 2 2 , 7 2 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Iv e za j v . I NS , 8 4 F .3 d 21 5, 22 0 ( 6th Cir. 1996)). Any

interruption by

the I J was minimal, and at no point did the I J preve nt El Hara ke’s counsel fr om advocating on be half of his c lient. El Har ake essentially argues that by not allowing 7No. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

preve nting Podi o from presenting testimony of wit nesses, stating: “I don’t ca re a bout them.” Id. at 508. Her e, the I J did not aff irmatively deny El Har ake the opportunity to testify or pre sent evidenc e, but only interrupted E l Hara

ke’s c ounsel when he soug ht to ex plain why evidenc e wa s unavailable

. Contrary to El Hara

ke’s a rg ument, the Eig hth Circ uit’s decision in Al Kho ur i v . A sh c ro

ft , 8 362 F.3d 461 ( 8th Cir. 2004), is not on point . I n Al Kho ur i , the cour

t held th at t h e I J v iolated Al Kh ouri ’s du e pr oc e ss r ig hts by “ c ur ta ili ngMr . A l K

ho ur i’ s te sti mony and

c ir c ums c ri bin g his a

bil ity to elaborate on the deta i l s o f his claim by instructing him only

to answer

the questions asked a

nd then conc luding that Mr. A l Khouri’s limited responses undermined his cre dibilit y .” Id. at 465. I mportantly , the cour

t held that the I J had an obligation to develop the rec ord beca use Al Khouri wa s not repre sented by

counsel. Id. a t4 6 4

- 6 5

. H e r e , E l H ar a k e w a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l an d t h e IJ did not prevent him from pre senting evidenc e. E l Ha ra k e’ s fr eq u en tap p ea l t o C o n gre s s ’s i n t en t “t h at al i en s wh o m arry af t er p ro ce ed i n gs 9 have be en initiated, and who seek adjustment of status, should be aff orded one opportunity

to present clea r and convincing evidenc e that their ma rriag e is bona fide ” is unava iling. See El Hara ke B r. at 20. The I J g ave El Har ake his oppor tunity to pr esent evidenc e that the marria g e was bona fide, but - 8 - him to present evidenc e at a nother time, the I J denied him due pr ocess. El Ha rake provides no support for this argument that due proc ess re quired the I J to provide El Har ake an opportunity to be hear d whene ver El Ha

rake desired.
The I J also did not deny

El Hara ke the oppor

tunity to cre ate a

rec ord for

appea l. El Harake ref ers to Lad

ha v . I NS , 2 1 5 F

. 3 d

8 8 9 , 9 0 3

- 0 4 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o nt h a t“ w h e na nIJ makes a deter mination to ex clude e vidence , or not to consi d er i t at al l

. . . , she must acc ept and identify documents so t here is a record on appea l.” El Har ake Br. at 22. Her e, the I J did not decide

“ no t to c on sid e r [E l H ara ke ’s e vid e nc e ] a

t a ll. ” El Ha

ra ke ha d no e vid e nc e to pr od uc e a t th e tim e of the he ari ng(o the r tha

n th e marr ia g e c e rt if

ic a te , w hic h th e I J con sid e re d)

. El Ha ra ke on c e a g a in 8 confuse s an I J ’s obligation to permit an a lien to present e vidence at a he aring , and a de cision by an I J not to permit an alien the oppor tunity to present e vidence at another time. 9No. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

El Hara ke had no e vidence to present a t t h at time. El Harake does not point this court to any authority requiringthe I J or B I A to g ive him an additional opportunity to present e vidence

. El Hara ke re fer s to a number of statutes and regulations g overning the conduc t of a re moval 10 h ea ri n g. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (“The immigration judge sha ll administ er oaths, rece ive evidenc e, and inter

rog ate, e x amine, and c ross-examine the alien and any witnesses.”) ; 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a (b )( 4) (B ) ( “ [T]he a lie n s ha ll h a ve a re a so na ble op po rt

un ity to e xami ne the e vid e nc e a g a ins t the alien, to pre sent evidenc e on the alien’s own behalf , and to c ross-examine witnesses pre sented by the Go ve rnme nt. ” ); 8 U.S .C

. § 122 9a (b )( 4) (C ) ( “ [A] c omp le te re c or d s ha ll b e ke pt o f a ll testimony and evide nce produce d at the proc eeding .”); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.47 (“ The he aringbefor e the immigration judge, inc lu d i n g the testimony , exhibi ts, applications, proff ers, a nd reque sts, the immigration judge ’s decision, and all written orders, motions, appea ls, briefs, and othe r pape rs filed in the proceeding s shall constitute the record in the case.”) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.48(a) (“The immigration judge shall

. . . advise the r espondent that he or she will have a re asonable opportunity to examine and ob je c t to the e vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m or he r, to p re se nt e viden c e in h is o r h e r o wn be ha lf a nd to c ro ss- e xami ne wi tne sse s p re se nte d by the Go ve rnme nt; [an d] pl a c e the re sp on de nt u nd e r o a th. ” ); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.48(b) ( “I f the re spondent admit s t h e fa ct u al alleg ations and admits his or her deporta bility under the char g es and the i mmigration judge is satisfied t hat no issues of law or fac t rema in, the immigration judge ma y deter mine that deporta

bility as charg ed has been e stablished by the admissions of the re spondent.”). El Hara ke states that the I J “re fused to follow her statutory and re g ulatory

mandate to a cce pt 11 sworn testimony

from Mr. El Ha

rake , his U nited States citizen wif e, and other

witnesses per

taining to the bona fide s of their marria g e and allow submissi on of documentar y evidenc e on the bona f

ides of the mar

riag e.” E l Hara

ke B r. at 27. El Ha

rake also states that the I J “fa iled to allow [El Harake ] to cre ate a

rec ord for

appea l,” and c omplains that “the I J ’s interruption of M r. El Harake ’s re pr e se ntativ e and

re fusa l to a llo w a

c on tin ua nc e to p ro du c e e vid e nc e ” vio la te d D HS r e g ulatio ns . - 9 - b. Failure to Follow Procedures
Th e I J and

B I A d id n ot v iol a te El Ha ra ke ’s du e pr oc e ss r ig hts by fa ili ngto c omp ly wi th t he ir own rules a

nd regulations, se e Un ite d Sta te s e x re l. Ac c ar

di v . S ha ug hn essy , 347 U.S. 260 (1954), beca use the I J and B I A did not violate any statutes or regu l at i o n s wh i le consider ing E l Hara ke’s

c a se . El Ha

ra ke ’s argume nt i s mo stl y

a re ha sh ingof

his de nia l- of

-t he -o pp or tun ity -t o- pr e se nt- 10

e vid e nc e du e pr oc e ss c la im, wh ic h is for e c los e d by the ana ly sis a bo ve c on c lud ingthat th e I J did 11No. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

El Har ake Br . at 27. Fina lly , El Hara ke states that “ [p] erha

ps the most damag ing e rror committed by the I J w a s h e r r e f

u s a l to a ll o w [E l H ar a k e ] th e o p p o rtu n it y to p r e s e n t e v id e n c e to support the validity of his marria g e.” E l Hara ke B r. at 27. El Hara ke does make one argument for how the I J failed to c omply with DHS regulations 12 that is dif fe re nt f ro m hi s p re vio us du e pr oc ess ar g ume nts , b ut i t to o is un pe rs ua siv e . Re fe rr ingto In re A-P- , 2 2 I &N De c. 4 6 8 (B I A 1 9 9 9 ), E l Ha ra k e a rgu es t h at an I J i s p ro h i b i t edfr o m en t er i n g a “summary

decision . . . whe re f

urther f act- finding or ana ly sis is necessar y to resolve a

n issue that rema ins a fter the responde nt ha s admitted to the fac tual alleg ations and char g es o f r em o v ability .” El Hara ke B r. at 28. In re A-P- is a dec ision based on a r eg ulation no longe r in forc e that g overne d “summary

decisions”—i.e., “ abbre viated” de cisions that the I J may issue in “l im it e d

c ir c u ms ta n c es.” In re A-P- , 2 2 I & N at 4 7 0

- 7 1

. H e r e , th e I J d id n o t is s u e a “ s u mm a r y d e c is io n ” b u t issue d an ora l decision explaining in deta il why El Hara ke wa s subject to remova l. See AR 292-96. El Har ake also argues t hat t he I J ’s denial of hi s motion for continuance was a denial of due pr oc e ss. Th e Sup re me Court ha s h e ld t hat “ [t]he re qu ir e me nts of pr oc e dura l du e pr oc e ss a

pp ly on ly to the deprivation of interests enc ompassed by the Four teenth Amendme nt’s p r o te ction of liberty and proper ty .” Bd . o f R e ge nts v . R oth , 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). This court has he ld that “[t] he fa ilure to be g rante d discretionar y relief does not amount to a d ep ri v at i on of a liber ty interest.” Hu ic oc he a- Go me

z v. INS , 237 F.3d 696, 700 ( 6th Cir. 2001). There fore , the I J ’s denial of discretionar

y relief to El Hara

ke did not amount to a denia l of due proc ess. Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales , 43 6 F. 3d 62 7, 63 5 (6t

h Cir. 20 06 ) (h old ing that den ia l of co nti nu anc e is not a de nia l of du e pr oc e ss beca use g rant of c ontinuance is discr etionary). Fu rt h er m o re, the fac ts that the I J ’s denial of El Ha ra ke ’s mot ion

fo r c on tin ua nc e wa s no t an a

bu se of dis c re tio n a

nd that E l H ark e ha d a

n o pp or tun ity to present e vidence at the hea ring fore close El Ha

rake ’s argument that the I J ’s denial of the motion was a violation of due proc ess. See infra Part 2.a. Ad dit ion a lly , E l H ara

ke ’s a rgume nt t

hat th e I J viol a te d h is d

ue pr oc e ss r ig hts by

de c idi nghis c a se e ve n thoug h th e I J “r e a lize d th a t a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e e xiste d” is w ith ou t me ri t f or the same rea son stated above—the I J is not require d to permit an alien to pr oduce e vidence not available at t h e h ea ri n g. - 10 - no t de ny El Harake an o pp or

tun ity to p re se nt e vid e nc e be c a us e El Ha

ra ke ha d n o e vid e nc e to pr e se nt. 12

c. Ineffec tive Assistance of Counsel
This c ourt does not have jurisdiction to revie w El Har ake’ s claims of ineff ective a ssistanceNo. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

El Har ake does not argue that the I J abused he r discre tion by failing to gr ant a c ontinuance, 13 but instead that the B I A err ed by not f inding that El Hara

ke had show n “g ood cause .” “G ood cause ” - 11 - of c ouns e l be c a

us e El Ha ra ke fa ile d to fi le a pe tit ion fo r re vie w of the B I A’ s de c isi on de nyinghis mot ion to r e c on sid e r. Un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2( b) (1 ), a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w o f a r e mov a l or de r m us t be filed w ith the court of appea ls w ithin 30 day s. Her e, El Har ake failed to f ile a petition for r eview of the B I A’s dec ision deny ing his motio n to rec onsider. The ref ore, this cour

t does not have jurisdiction to review that de cision . See, e .g. , Pr e k aj v . I NS , 384 F.3d 265, 267-68 (6th Cir. 2004);

se e als o Ston e v . I

NS , 5 14 U. S. 3 86 , 3 94 -9 5, 40 3 ( 19 95 ) ( no tin g that an e arl ie r v e rs ion of 8 U .S. C. § 1252(b)( 6), which r equire d consolidation of review of a n order under 8 U .S.C. § 1252 wit h revie w of a mot ion to r e c on si der, con te mpl a te s th e fi lin g of tw o p e tit ion s f

or re vie w w he re a

mot ion to

rec onsider lea ds to a second B I A dec ision).
2. Denial of

Motion for Continuance a nd Motion to R emand
Th is co ur t r e vie ws bo th a

de nia l of a mot ion fo r c on tin

ua nc e and a de nia l of a mot ion to

rema nd for a n abuse of

discretion. Abu-Khaliel , 436 F. 3 d at 634. Ther e is an a buse of discr etion if “the denial . . . was made without a rational e x planation, inexpli cably depar ted from e stablished policies, or re sted on an impermissible basis such a s invidious di scrimination.” Id.

a. Motion for Cont inuance
Th e B I A did no t e rr wi th re sp e c t to El Ha ra ke ’s mot ion

fo r c on tin

ua nc e be c a us e the I J did

no t a bu se he r dis c re tio n by de nying the mot ion

. El Ha ra ke re qu e ste d a con tin

ua nc e fr om t

he I J to 13No. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

is the standard that the I J uses to de termine whe ther to g rant a continuance , see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, wher eas this cour

t review s the I J ’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. Thus, El Hara ke is a rguin g the wr on g sta

nd ard of re vie w b e fo re thi s c ourt
. The I J explained during the hear ing that “if y ou’re seekinga continuanc e for adjudication 14 of the I -1 30 , y ou

have to e st abl is h th a t, o r t he re ’s a pr ima fa c ie e vid e nc e that th e re ’s a g oo d f a ith m arri age . ” A R

3 1 8

. I nh er

o ra l d ec i s i o n , t h e IJ s t at edt h e f o l l o wi n g: Th e re sp on de nt h a s su

bmi tte d s ole ly

a marr ia g e c e rt if

ic a te on the iss ue of

a re qu e st for a continuance under the Boa rd dec i s i on in Matter of Velarde . The Court finds that there is no indicia to overcome the presumption of a fraudule nt marriag e base d solely upon a mar

riag e ce rtificate , indeed, ther e is no ev i d en ce that the re spondent would have immediate ly

available [an] immigra

nt visa assuming a

rg uendo that the I -130 would be f

iled. AR 294. - 12 - allow time for the D HS to adjudicate the se parate I -130 petition. See AR 317-18. The I J denied the

m o t i o nfo r c o n t i n u an ce b ec a u s e E l H ar ak e d i d n o ts u b m i tev i d en ce i nad d i t i o nt o t h e m arri age
cer tificate showingthat the marr iag e wa s bona fide. AR 294. The B I A af firmed the I J ’s denial of 14 El Hara ke’s “ reque st for an ope n-ende d continuance to await a de cision on a Petitio n for Alien R el at i v e (I-1 3 0 ) filed on his behalf by his United States spouse.” AR 147. The I J ’s denial of the motion for continuance beca use El Har ake prese nted no evidenc e to show that the I -130 p eti tion would be successful was not irrational. Cf. Zafar v

. United States Att’y Ge n. , 461 F.3d 1357, 1364 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that denial of motions for c o n t i nuance was not an a buse of discr etion “[g]iven that petitioners had f iled only labor c ertificate applications with t he DOL , were n o t y et statutorily elig ible for a djustment of status unde r § 1255(i), and had not filed I -485 applications forNo. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

Two Seventh Circuit ca s es h o lding that a n I J ’s denial of

a continuanc e wa s an abuse of 15 discretion ar e distinguishable . I n Su bh an v. A sh croft , 383 F.3d 591, 593 ( 7th Cir. 2004), an alien reque st ed a co n t i nuance from the I J so that he could obtain labor cer tificates whic h would have pe rm itt e d h im t o r e ma in i n th e Uni te d St a te s. Th e I J den ie d th e c on tin ua nc e “ sa y ingtha t w hil e Subhan ‘m ay b e able to eventually acquir e lawf

ul permane nt resident status by virtue of employ ment,’ not having done so as y et he wa s ‘not elig ible for this form of r elief at this t ime.’” Id. Th e Se ve nth

Cir c uit he ld that the I J’s de nia l of the c on tin ua nc e wa s an a

bu se of dis c re tio n b e c a

us e the I J ’s statement “ was not a reason f o r d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o nf

o r a . . . c o n t i n u an c e , b u tm e r e l y a statement of the obvious: that the labor depar tments hadn’t y et ac t ed.” Id. a t 59 5 ( e mph a sis in orig inal). In Benslimane v . Gonzales , 4 30 F .3 d 8 28 , 8 30 (7 th C ir . 2 00 5), an a lie n s ou g ht a continuance so that his wife’s I -130 petition and his I -485 adjus tment-of-status pe tition could be adjudicate d. The I J denied the c ontinuance be cause the alien’s attorney failed to submit a copy of the I -485 petition as the I J had re quested. Id. a t 83 1. Th e Se ve nth Cir c uit he ld t hat th is w a s an a

bu se of di scre tion beca

use “the circ umstances of this case [were ] si milar to those in Subhan ” an d t h e IJ “ar bitrarily den[ied]” the continuance .” Id. at 832. These case s are distinguishable. Where as in Subhan , the I J g ave no r eason f or deny ing the continuance , and in Benslimane , the I J g ave a n arbitra ry rea son, here , the I J g ave a rational re ason: El Ha ra ke did no t pr ov ide any

e vid e nc e that su g g e ste d th a t he ha d a ny lik e lih oo d o f s uc c e ss i n adjudicatinghis I -485 petition. I t c annot be the case that any time an alien f

iles an I -485 petition or ha s an I -1 30 pe tit ion

fi le d o n h is b e ha lf

, th e I J is required to g ra

nt a c on tin

ua nc e . Suc h a

vie w w ou ld conflict with the di scre tion that the reg ulations expli citly provide to the I J

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (“The I mmigration J udg e m a y grant a mot ion fo r c on tin

ua nc e fo r g oo d c a

us e sh ow n. ” (e mph a sis added) ). As discussed su pra , an I J ’s denial o f a conti nuance should be upheld so long as it is not irrational. He re, the I J ’s re quirement that El Har ake make at least some showing of a likelihood of su c c e ss b e fo re g ra

nti nga c on tin ua nc e is n ot i rr a tio na l. A “motion to r emand” is g ener ally treated the same a s a “motion to reope n.” See P ilica v. 16 As hc ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 945 n.3 ( 6th Cir. 2004). - 13 - adjustment-of-status relief unde r § 1255(i)” ). There fore , the I J did not abuse her discretion. 15
b. Motion to Remand
The BI A di d not abuse its discretion by denying El Harake’s motion to remand. The BIA has discretion to g rant a

motion to reope n —in the absence of a pre viously issued visa—wher e “( 1) the 16
mot ion is time ly fi le d; (2 ) the mot ion is n ot n ume ri c a lly

ba rr e d b y the re g ulatio ns ; ( 3) the mot ion isNo. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

The B I A’s test for

deter min i n g wh et her to g rant a motion to reopen in In re Ve larde- 17 Pache co was pre mised on a desire to provide aliens “ who ar e other wise p ri m a facie e ligible f or adjustment [wit h] t he opportunity to have their adjustment applications revie wed by an I mmigration J udg e.” 23 I &NDec . at 2 5 5

. P re v i o u s l y , in In re Arthur , the B I A had he ld that its pol icy of regularly g ranting motions t o reope n whene ver th er e wa s an unadjudicated visa petition pending c on fl ic te d w iththe I mmi g ratio n Mar ri a g e F ra ud Am e ndme nts of 19 86 , Pu b. L . N o. 99 -6 39 , 1 00 Stat. 3537, and the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L . No. 101-649 , 1 0 4 S t at
. 4 978, which cr eate d a presumption that marria g es ente red into afte r the g overnme nt initi ates de portation proce eding s are fra udulent. In re Arthur , 20 I &N Dec . at 477-79. In In re Ve larde-Pac heco , the B I A simply softened the rule a dopted in In re Arthur —that I J s should deny

motions to re op e n ba se d on un a dju dic a te d v isa p et i t i o n s

—

b ec au s e t h e B I A re co gn i z ed t h at I -1 3 0 v i s a pe t i t i o n s ar e no t ad j u d i ca t ed qu i ck l y

en o u gh to permit the g ranting of a motion to reope n only afte r t he I NS has approve d an I -130 visa petition. In re Ve larde-Pac heco , 23 I &NDec . at 255.
Her e, the Gove rnment opposed El Ha rake ’s motion to rema

nd on non- In re Ar thu r g ro un ds

. 18 For examp l e, the Government opposed the motion because El Hara ke “ha s failed to submit any evidenc e that is newly

discovere d or pre viously unavailable .” AR 150. The G overnme nt’s opposition was consistent with DHS reg ulations. 8 C. F. R

. § 1 003.2(c) (1) ( “A motion to reope n pr oc e e din g s sh a ll n ot be g ra nte d un le ss it a

pp e ars to the B oa

rd that e vid e nc e so ug ht to be of fe re d is ma te ri a l and was not available and could not have bee n discove red or presente d at the former hearing .” (e mphasis added) ). - 14 - n o tb ar r e d b y [ In re ] Shaar , 21 I &NDec . 541 (B I A 1996), or on any other proc edura l gr ounds; (4) the mo ti o np r e s e n ts c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e in d ic a ti n g a s tr o n g li k e li h o o d

th a t the responde nt’s marria g e is bona fide ; and (5) the Service either doe s not oppose the motion or bases its opposit ion solely

on [ In re Arthur , 20 I &N Dec . 475 (B I A 1992)].” In re Ve larde-Pac heco , 23 17 I &NDec

. 253, 256 (B I A 2002). The B I A denied E l Hara ke’s motion to remand be cause the DHS opposed the motion and beca use of “the absenc e of a

n approve d visa.” AR 147. B eca use El Har ake did no t sat isf

y the te st f ro m In re Ve larde-Pac heco , the BIA did not abuse its discr etion by denying 18 h is mo ti o nto r e ma

nd. Bh is ki v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 73 F .3 d 3 63 , 3 71 -7 2 ( 3d Cir . 2 00 4) ; see also Badr v. As hc ro ft , N o. 01 -7 13 26 , 5 6 F e d. Ap px. 7 86 , 7 88 (9 th C ir . 2 00 3) (h old ingthat th e B I A did no t a bu seNo. 05-3993

El Harake v . Gonzales

- 15 - its discretion where the alien “fa iled to submit evidenc e that his visa was immediately available ” and the re quirements of In re Ve larde-Pac heco we re no t me t) ; c f. Desoguste v . U.S. Att’y Ge n. , No. 04- 15 97 3, 13 5 F e d. Ap px. 2 47 , 2 49 -5 0 (11 th C ir . 2 00 5) (h old ingthat th e B I A d id n ot a bu se its discretion whe n it denied a moti on to reope n beca use evidence submit ted wit h the m otion to reopen could have been pr esente d to the I J ).
Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY the petition for re view.