2008 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
3-14-2008 

# V ak k e r 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1949

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_2008

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 2008 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

" V ak ke r v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1346. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1346P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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

. 06- 1949

BO RI S VA KK ER Pet i t i oner

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

R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B oar d of

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls N o. A 79- 014- 570 I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. W al t erA

. D ur l i ng
Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February12, 2008 BE F OR E : S L OVI T E R, S M I T H a n d S T AP L E T ON,

C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 14, 2008)2 Sandr a L. G r een 2 Fl oor nd 2001 E as tM arketSt r eet Y or k, PA 17402 A t t orneyforPet i t i oner Pet erD
. K ei s l er D o u g las E

. G insb u rg J o h n D. W i l l i a ms L y l e D
. J ent zer U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 A t t orney s forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: In th e c o u rse o f

re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s b ro u g h t ag ai nsthim b yth e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liz a tio n S e rv ic e , B o ri s V a k k e r, a “par ol ed” a l i en, r eq u est ed thatthe I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) perm i thi m t o r enew a pr evi ous l ydeni ed appl i cat i on for adj us t m entof s t atus . T he I J deni ed t he r eques t
. W hi l e the pr ocee di ngs w er e on appe al to the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on3 A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , V akker fi l ed a mot i on w i th the B I A t o r emand hi s cas e t o the I J for r econs i der at i on of the adj us t m entof s t atus i s s ue pr edi cat ed upon an i nt erveni ng cas e of thi s court
. T he B IA d e n ied th e m o tio n to re m a n d , an d V a k k e r p e tit io n s th is c o u r tf o rr e v i e w o f th a t ru l i n g . F o r th e r e a s o n s th a t f o l l o w, we w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I Pet i t i oner , a n ati ve of Russ i a, i ni t i al l yarr i ved i n the U n i t e d S ta te s a f

te r b e in g g ra n te d “ p a ro le ” s ta tu s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( d ) ( 5 )

. He th e n a p p l i e d f o ra d j u s t me n to f

s t a tu s . 8 U. S

. C. § 1255; 8 C

. F. R
. 2 4 5
. 7
. H ow ever , w hi l e thatappl i cat i on w as pendi ng, he w as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyto c om m i tal i en s m uggl i ng. H i s convi ct i on r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e for adj us t m entof s t atus , 8 U
. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 6) ( E ) , and the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “IN S ”) , now the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty ’ s C i t i zen a nd I m m i gr at i on S e rv ic e s (“ C IS ” ), t h e re f o re d e n ie d h is a p p lic a tio n . F o llo w in g h is c o n v ictio n , the IN S se rv e d p e tit io n e r w ith a Not i c e t o App e a r , c h a r g i n g h i m w i th r e mov a b i l i tyo n th r ee gr ounds : convi ct i on of a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, l ack o f e n tr yd o c u m e n ts , a n d a lie n s m u g g lin g . See 8 U
. S. C

. §§ 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , 1182( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , 1182( a) ( 6) ( E ) ( i )

. T he I J found hi m r emovabl e. Pet i t i oners oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng o f r emoval an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”)

. Pet i t i oneral s o s oughtt o r enew hi s appl i cat i on for a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . T he I J d e t e r mi n e d th a t p e t i t i o n e r q u a l i f i e d for8 C

. F
. R
. § 1245. 1( c) ( 8) has s i nce be en r epl ace d w i th an 1 u n re la te d re g u la tio n . 4 w ith h o ld ing o f re m o v al. T h e IJ, ho w ev er, de n ied p eti ti o n er’s re q u e st to re n e w h is ad

ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s a p p lica tio n b e c a u se , it concl uded, then- appl i cabl e r egul at i ons pr ecl uded al l “par ol ed” a lie n s f ro m s e e k in g a d

ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s , 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 (c )( 8 ) (r e p e a le d M a y1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ), i nval i dat ed by Zheng v. G onz al es , 4 2 2 F .3 d 9 8 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ), an d the IJ the ref o re 1 la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r s u c h a n a p p lic a tio n . T he A t t orney G ener al appea l ed t he IJ ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng pet i t i onerw i thhol di ng of r emoval t o the B I A

. Pet i t i oner di d not in iti a llya p p e a l th e IJ’ s d e n ial o f h is re q u e st to re n e w h is “a d ju s tm e n t of

statu s” a p p li ca ti o n ; ho w ev er, after this co u rt ’s rul i ng i n Zheng v. G onz al es , 422 F. 3d 98 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , w hi ch i nval i dat ed the r egul at i on on w hi ch the I J had r el i ed, pet i t i oner fil ed a m o ti o n w ith the B IA to rem an d the p roc ee d ing s to the IJ forr econs i der at i on o f h i s r eques tt o r enew hi s “adj us t m entof s ta tu s ” a p p lic a tio n . T he B I A i s s ued a d eci s i on i n w hi ch i tdi s m i s s ed the A t t orneyG ener al’s appea l beca us e i tagr eed w i th the I J that p e t i t i o n e ri s e l i g i b l e fo r w i th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l

. I n th e s a me deci s i on, the B I A al s o deni ed pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r emand on the “a dj us t m entof s t atus ” i s s ue. T he B I A acknow l edged that Zhengi nval i dat ed the aut hor i tyupon w hi ch the I J had r el i ed. H ow ever, the B IA ruled that pet i t i on er w as neve rtheles s i neli gibl e t o renew his adjustm ent of st atus app l i cat i on “beca use h e [ d id ] n o t m e e t th e re n e w a l r e q u ir e m e n ts u n d e r 8 C .F .R . §5 1 2 4 5 .2 (a ).” A .R . a t 1 1
. V akkerpet i t i ons thi s courtfor r evi ew of the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r emand. II T hi s court gener al l y r evi ew s m ot i ons t o rem and d ep o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s, li k e m o ti o n s to reo p en o r rec o n side r, f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Ko ry tn

y u k v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 6 F. 3 d 292, 2 7 9

- 8 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Shar darv. A t t or ney G ener al , 503 F. 3d 308, 311- 12 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. H ow ever , thi s court ’ s r evi ew of the lega l st an d ard s tha t th e B IA ap p li ed w h en itd en ied V ak k er’s m oti on t o rem and i s de novo : “ques t i ons of l aw , s uch as w hether the B I A appl i ed the correc tl egal s t andar d i n cons i der i ng the m ot i on t o r eopen a nd the under l y i ng [l egal ] cl ai m . . . ar e [] r evi ew ed de novo

. ” Fadiga v. A t t or ney G ener al , 153- 54 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). See al

s o C abr er a- P er ezv. G onz al es , 456 F. 3d 109, 1 1 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). III V akkeras s erts tha t , fol l ow i ng Zheng , h e is f a c ially el i gible to r enew hi s adj us t m entof s t atus appl i cat i on, and that the B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r emand on t hati s s ue w as i nadequa t e and deni ed hi m due pr oces s of the l aw . T he A ttorn eyG en era l r aises a juri sd ict ion al ch all en g e to V ak k er’s pet i t i on, w hi ch w e w i l l addr es s befor e reac h i ng the mer i t s of V akk er’ s cl ai m s. AT h e B IA re m a n d e d th e p e tit io n to th e IJ in a c c o rd a n c e w ith 2 8 C

. F. R § 1003. 1( d) ( 6) and 8 C

. F. R
. § 1003. 47( h)

. A pp. at11. 6 T he A t t orneyG ener al ar gues thatV akker ’s pet i t i on for r evi ew w as unt i m el y . Pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(1) , “a pet i t i on forr evi ew m us tbe fi l ed notl at erthan thi r tyday s aft er the dat e of the fi nal or derof r emoval

. ” W e have j ur i s di ct i on overV ak k er’s pet i t i on under8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( a) ( 1) and § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 2 ) o n ly if

th e p e titio n w a s tim e ly. See St one v. I

. N

. S. , 5 1 4 U
. S

. 3 8 6 , 4 0 5 (19 9 5 ) (“[j]ud ici al re v iew p rov isi o n s . . . are j ur i s di ct i onal i n natur e”)

. W e conc l ude thatthe pet i ti on w as t i m e l y. T h e B IA ’s F eb rua ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , “d ec isi o n a n d o rd er” r es ol ved s ever al i s s ues and concl uded w i th thr ee “ or der s ”: one deny i ng V akker ’ s m ot i on t o r emand , one di s m i s s i ng the A t t orneyG ener al ’ s appea l , and one r emandi ng the pr ocee di ngs t o the I J for c ert ai n i dent i tyand bac kgr ound chec ks thatar e a pr er equi s i t e t o the entry o f anyor dergr ant i ng w i thhol di ng of r emoval

. U pon compl et i on of thos e chec ks , the I J i s s ued a f i nal 2 or deron M ar ch 13, 200 6 , g r ant i ng V akkerw i thhol di ng of r emoval

. V akkerfi l ed hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew on M ar ch 17, 2006. A pp. at2. T her efor e, hi s pet i t i o n w as u nt i m el yi f the B IA ’s d e c isio n w a s the p e rtin e n t “f in a l o rd e r,” a n d it w a s tim e ly i f the I J ’ s or derupon r emand w as the “f i nal or der

. ” O r di nar i l y , w hen the B I A r emands r emoval pr ocee di ngs to th e IJ p u rsu a n t to 8 C .F .R . § § 1 0 0 3 .4 7 (h ), th e “ f in a l o rd e r” in th e re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s is th e IJ ’s o rd e r f o llo w in g re m a n d

. InT he r egul at i ons themsel ves ar e f airl ycl eari n thi s r egar d. 3 F or exam ple, 8 C

. F
. R §. 10 03
. 1(d)( 6), provides: [t ] he B oar d s hal l noti s s ue a de ci s i on aff i r m i ng or gr ant i ng t o an al i en an i m m i gr at i on s t atus , r el i ef orpr ot ect i on fr om r emoval , orotheri m m i gr at i on benef i t , as pr ovi ded i n 8 C

. F. R
. § 1003. 47( b) , that r equi r es compl et i on of i dent i ty , l aw enfor cement ors ecur i tyi nves t i gat i ons orexami nat i ons i f: (A ) id e n tity , law e n f o rc e m e n t o r se c u rity i nves t i gat i ons orexami nat i on s h ave notbeen c o m p le te d d u ri n g th e p ro c e e d in g s ; . . . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )( 6 ) ( i) (A ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). S im ila rl y , § 10 03
. 47 provides as fol l ow s: (h) A d jud icati o n u p o n rem an d fro m the B o ard

. In a n yc a s e r e ma n d e d p u r s u a n tt o 8 C. F
. R. § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( d )(6 ), th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e sh a ll cons i dert he r es ul t s of th e ident i ty , l aw enfor cement or s ecur i ty i nves t igation s or e x a m in a tio n s . . . . T h e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e sh a ll then ent eran or dergr ant i ng ordeny i ng the im m ig ra tio n re lief

so u g h t. 8 C

. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 4 7 (h) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 7 r e Fabri ci o A l cantar a- P er ez , 23 I
. & N
. D ec. 882 ( B
. I
. A

. Feb. 23, 2006)

. T he A t t orneyG ener al ar gues , how ever , thatthe

3 v a r i o u s o r d e r s i n th e BI A’ s F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , d e c i s i o n b e c a me8 “fi nal ” atdi ffe r entt i m es : thatthe B I A ’ s or derdeny i ng V a k k e r’s m o tio n to re m a n d w a s a “ f in a l o r d e r ,” e v e n if V ak k er’ s r emoval pr ocee di ngs beca m e fi nal l at er , i n the I J ’s M ar ch 13 o rde r. W e do noti nt erpr etthe pr ocee di ngs i n that m an n er. C ertainly , o rde rs d en y ing m o ti o n s to rem an d , li k e o rde rs deny i ng m ot i ons t o r eopen orr econs i der , can q u ali fyas in d e p e n d e n t f

in a l o rd e rs o v e r w h ich th is c o u rt c a n , in a p p ro p ri a te c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a s s u m e ju ri s d ic tio n . See Korytnyuk v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F
. 3 d 2 9 2 , 2 7 9 -83 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); Shar darv. A t t or ney G ener al , 5 0 3 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 1 -1 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); C r uzv. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 5 2 F .3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Sevoi an v. A sh c ro ft , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 -7 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). In d e e d , this c o u rt h a s s tate d th a t:

w e ca n i ndepende nt l yr evi ew the deni al of a m ot i on t o r eopen or r econs i der

. . . [and] a pr oper pet i t i on forr evi ew m u stbe fi l ed w i thi n [the ap p rop ri ate ti m e] of the spec i f i c order s o u g h t to be r evi ew ed. A l l eyne v. I

. N

. S. , 8 7 9 F .2 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (e m p h a sis i n or i gi nal ; i nt ernal quot at i on om i tt e d )

. H ow ever , thes e ca s es do notes t abl i s h thatan or derdeny i ng a mot i on t o r emand neces sar i l ybecomes “fi nal ” i m m edi at el y , i rr es pect i ve of the s t atus of the pr ocee di ngs i n w hi ch i ti s ent er ed. 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 

### ( c ) ( 4) pr ovi des : “A m ot i on t o r eopen a dec i s i on r ender ed byan I m m i gr at i on J ud g e . . . thati s fi l ed w hi l e an appeal i s pendi ng befor e t he B oar d, m aybe dee m ed a9 m ot ion to r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge .

. . fr om w hos e dec i s i on the appe al w as t aken. Such m ot i on m ay be consol i dat ed w i th, and cons i der ed bythe B oar d i n connec t i on w i th, the appe al t o the B oar d. ” Id

. (em p h asis ad d ed ). H e re , th e B IA c h o se to c o n so lid a te p e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to r emand w i th the A t t orneyG ener al ’ s appea l of V akker ’ s r emoval pr ocee di ngs r ather than t o ent ert ai n thatm ot i on as an inde pendentpr ocee di ng. I ti s s ued j us tone dec i s i on w hi ch ad d resse d b o th the A tt o rne yG en era l’ s ap p ea l and V ak k er’s m ot i on. T hi s w as , of cour s e, nots urpr i s i ng gi ven thatpet i t i oner had or i gi nal l yr ai s ed both i s s ues – r el i ef f r om deport at i on, and r e n e wa l o f

h i s a d j u s t me n to f

s t a tu s a p p l i c a t i o n – i n th e s a me h e a rin g s b e f

o r e th e IJ, a n d th e IJ h a d a d d re ss e d b o th iss u e s in tho se heari ng s. P et i t i on er pr esent ed the “adjustm ent of st atus” i s s ue t o the B I A i n a mot i on t o r emand r athe r th an i n a tr adi t i onal appea l onl ybeca us e the mot i on r el i ed on i nt erveni ng cas e l aw publ i s hed aft er the I J i s s ued hi s or i gi n al deci s i on. T her efor e, the tw o i s s ues had i n fa ctbeen c ons i der ed and addr es s ed j oi nt l yboth bythe I J and bythe B I A

. A s a re s ul tof th e B I A ’s c o n so lid a tio n o f th e se m a tters , itf

o llo w s th a t it s F e b ru a ry1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , o rd e r d id n o t f in a lly a d ju d ica te a ll i ss u e s in th e p ro c e e d in g in w h ich it w a s e n ter e d a n d w a s th e re f o re n o t a f in a l o rd e r. T h e A t t orneyG ener al i dent i fi es no author i tyi ndi cat i ng thatthe pert i nentj udi ci al r evi ew pr ovi s i ons oper at ed t o r ender the B I A ’ s or der s “fi nal ” atdi ffe r entt i m es u n d er the ci r cumst ance s of this c ase, and w e fi nd none. T he A t t orney G ener al r el i es on P opal v. A l ber t o G onz al es , 416 F. 3d 249 ( 3d10 C i r . 2005)

. T hatcas e is i nappos i t e: i tconce rned exha us t i on r ather than w hat cons t i tut es a “fi nal or der , ” and it s rea s oni ng does nots uppor tthe not i on thatther e w er e m u lt ipl e “f i nal or der s ” in thi s cas e. T he mosts ens i bl e i nt erpr et at i on of 8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( b) ( 1) i n thi s cas e i s thatthe cons ol i dat ed pr ocee di ngs beca m e “f

i n al” atthe s ame t i m e. A s the B I A has expl ai ned, once the B I A det erm i nes that an al i en i s “el i gi bl e for th e re lief re q u e ste d ” a n d re m a n d s th e d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g to the IJ for the re qui s i t e backgr ound chec ks , the I J ’ s ens ui ng or der “gr ant i ng r el i ef .

. . then bec om es the fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve or der i n the ca s e. ” I

n r e Fabri ci o A l cantar a- P er ez , 23 I
. & N
. D ec. at 884- 85. A l though I

n r e Fa b r i c i o Al c a n ta r a - Pe r ez di d not ad d ress the p rec ise q u esti o n b ef o re u s, it rec o g n ized that the IJ’s fi nal or derappl i es t o the “cas e, ” ra ther than “i s s ue” orthe “r el i ef gr ant ed. ” Thatw as true i rr es pect i ve of the fact th ats uch re m a n d s do no t “provid[e] an opp ortun i ty for the part i es to re litig a te is s u e s th a t w e re p re v io u s ly co n s id e re d a n d d e c id e d .” Id . W e f

in d n o re a so n to re a c h a d if f e re n t co n c lu sio n in th is c a se , an d w e h o ld th a t th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f V a k k e r ’ s m o tio n to r emand b ec am e fi nal atthe s ame t i m e as the r emai nderof V ak k er’s “c ase ”: at th e ti m e o f the IJ’s M arc h 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , o rde r. V a k k e r ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w w a s th e r e f

o r e t i m e l y. B V a k k e r arg u e s tha t h e h a d b e c o m e “ a t lea st f a c ia lly el i gi bl e” t o r enew hi s appl i cat i on for adj us t m ento f st atus fol l ow i ng thi s court ’ s deci s i on i n Zheng v. G onz al es , 422 F. 3d 9 8 (3 d C i r. 20 05 ), and that the B IA ’s decis i on den y i ng h is m o tio n to re m a n d w a s in a d e q u a te b e c a u se th e B IA f a iled to s peci fyw hi ch r equi r ement s r end ere d hi m i nel i gi bl e. V akker11 also i nsi st s that the B IA ’s decis i on viol at ed h i s D ue P rocess rig h ts. F in a lly , V a k k e r c o n ten d s th a t w e sh o u ld g ra n t h is p e tit io n in o rd e r to a f

f o rd th e B IA a n o p p o rtu n ityto a ss e ss h is m ot i on i n l i ghtof i nt er i m r egul at i ons pas s ed byC I S subs equent t o t he B I A ’ s deci s i on. T h e B IA ’s d e c isio n w a s n e ith e r in a d e q u a te f o r f a ili n g to “s peci fyw hi ch of the mandat ed r equi r ement s P et i t i onerfai l ed t o m eet , ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at25, norvi ol at ed V akker ’ s D ue Pr oces s r i ght s . T he B I A ’ s opi ni on r ecogni zed thatourdeci s i on i n Zheng , 4 2 2 F
. 3 d a t1 1 9

- 2 0 , i n v a l i d a t e d th e p r i o r8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 4 5 .1 (c )(8 ), in so f

a r a s it h a d c a teg o ric a llyre n d e re d a ll “parol ed” a lien s i neli gibl e t o ap plyfor adjustm ent of st atus. A pp. at1 0 -11
. H ow ever , the B I A rul ed thatV akkerw as n e v e rth e les s in e lig ib le to h a v e h is re q u e s t to re n e w h is ad ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s a p p lica tio n re c o n sid e re d in th e c o u rse o f h is r emoval p roce edi ngs . A s the B I A expl ai ned, “the r es pondent rem ai ns i neli gibl e t o renew his adjustm ent appl i cat i on becau se h e do es no t m ee t the ren ew al req u ir em en ts u n d er 8 C .F .R . § 1245. 2( a)

. ” A pp. at 10- 11. A t the t i m e of the B I A ’ s deci s i on, thatr egul at i on s etfor th the fol l ow i ng rul e: A n adj us t m entappl i cat i o n b yan al i en par ol ed unders ect i on 212( d) ( 5) of the A ct, w hi ch has b e e n d e n ied b yth e d ire c to r, m a y b e re n e w e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r 8 C F R p a rt 1 2 4 0 o n ly i f: (i) th e d e n ied a p p lica tio n m u st ha v e b e e n p ro p e rly fi l ed .

. . ; and12 ( i i ) T he appl i cant ’ s l at erabs ence and r eturn t o the U ni t ed St at es w as underthe t erm s of an a dvance parol e authori zat i on on F orm I- 51 2 g rant ed to p e rm it th e a p p lica n t’s a b se n c e a n d re tu rn to pur s ue t h e p rev iou sly fi l ed adj us t m ent appl i cat i on. 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .2 (a )( 1 ) ( a m e n d e d M a y1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ). P e t i t i o n e rwa s a “ p a r o l e d ” a l i e n s e e k i n g t o r e n e w a pr evi ous l ydeni ed appl i cat i on, and he doe s notar gue thatthe e x c e p t i o n s p e c i f

i e d i n § 1 2 4 5
. 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i ) a n d ( i i ) a p p l i e s t o h i m. P e titio n e r w a s “ in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s ,” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .2 (a )(1 ) (a m e n d e d M a y1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ), b o th w h e n h e f iled h is m o tio n to re m a n d a n d w h e n th e B IA d e n ied it. V a k k e r p o in ts t o no r eas on w hy , gi ven the pl ai n l anguage of § 1245. 2( a) ( 1) , he w oul d have been el i gi bl e t o r enew hi s appl i cat i on i n hi s r emoval proceed i ng s befo re the IJ. T herefore, the B IA ’s decis i on to denyV akker ’ s m ot i on t o r emand w as noti n err or . Si m i l ar l y , the B I A ’ s deci s i on di d notdenyV akker d u e proc es s of the l aw b e c a u se th e B IA c o n sid e re d V a k k e r’s m o tio n a n d p ro p e rly d e n ied it, p ro v id in g a d e q u a te e x p lan a tio n a n d a u th o rityto s u p p o rt its d e c is io n . W e di s agr ee w i th pet i t i oneri ns ofaras he ar gues thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on w as i ns uffi ci entbeca us e i t “ci t ed no fac t orthat r ender ed the Zheng decis i on i nap pli cable to P et i t i on er’ s r equ est for r emand. ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at 25. T he B IA ci t ed Ji ang v. G onz al es , 4 2 5 F .3 d 6 4 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), w h ich h e ld th a t § 1245. 2( a) , unl ike t he r egul at i on i nval i dat ed i n Zheng , w as not c o n tr a ry to th e IN A

. Id

. a t 6 5 3 (“ w e re jec t J ian g ’s c laim th a t 813 C. F. R. § 1 2 4 5
. 2 ( a )

. . . i s i n v a l i d b e c a u s e i tv i o l a t e s I NA § 245( a)

. . . . [Thatr egul at i on] i s noti ncons i s t entw i th the pr ovi s i ons of the I N A

. ”)

. I n Zhengw e h e ld t h a t 8 C .F .R . § 1245. 1( c) ( 8) ( r epea l ed M ay12, 2006) w as contr aryt o the C o n g re s s io n a l in ten t b e h in d IN A § 2 4 5 (a ) b e c a u se it c a teg o r ic a llyp re c lu d e d a ll “p a ro lee s” f ro m h a v in g th e ir adj us t m entof s t atus appl i cat i ons cons i der ed i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . T he courtpoi nt ed outi n Ji angthatthe s ame r at i on ale di d not a p p lyto § 1 2 4 5 .2 (a )(1 ) (a m e n d e d M a y1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) , w h ich (w ith l i mi t e d e x c e p t i o n s ) o n l yp r e c l u d e d p a r o l e d a l i e n s f r o m havi ng a pre v i ous l ydeni ed appl i cat i on re - cons i der ed dur i ng r emoval p ro c e e d in g s . A l though the C I S r ece nt l yr evi s ed § 1245. 2( a) ( 1) , that r evi s i on occ u rre d aft erthe B I A i s s ued i t s deci s i on, and i n any event , the r evi s ed r egul at i ons appea r t o offe rV akkerno gr eat er s uppor tthan the pr evi ous ver s i ons . T he r evi s ed r eg u l at i ons s t at e: ( i ) I n G ener al

. I n the ca s e of a n y ali en w h o has b e e n p lac e d in d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s o r in r emoval pr ocee di n gs ( otherthan as an arr i vi ng al ie n) , the i m m i gr at i on j udge hea r i ng the p ro c e e d in g s h a s e x c lu s iv e ju risd ictio n to adj udi cat e a n yap p l i c at i on foradj us t m entof s t atus the al i en mayfi l e. ( i i ) A r r i vi ng A l i ens . In t he ca s e of a n arr i vi ng al i en w ho i s pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs, the im m ig ra tio n ju d g e d o e s n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to adj udi cat e an yap p l i c a t i on foradj us t m entof s t atus14 fi l ed bythe arr i vi ng al i en unl es s : [four en u m era ted c o n d it ion s are sati sfied ]. 8 C

. F. R
. § 1245. 2( a) ( 1)

. “Par ol ed” a l i ens ar e ge n e r a l l y“arr i vi ng al i ens , ” s ee 8 C

. F
. R
. §§ 1. 1(q), 10 01
. 1 (q ); Zheng , 422 F. 3d at 110- 11 and n. 10, and pet i t i onerdoes notar gue thathe i s notan “arr i vi ng al i en. ” N ordoes pet i t i onerar gue thatthe § 1 2 4 5
. 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) e x c e p tio n , s ee § 1 2 4 5 .2 (a )(1 )(ii)(A )-(D ), ap p lies to h im

. In ste a d , p e tit io n e r arg u e s tha t “ p u rsu a n t to th e in ter im rul es, the rem ov al proceed i ng s canno tbe co ncluded w i th o u t a d e te rm in a tio n f

ro m th e a g e n c yre g a rd in g [ h is ] a p p lic a tio n .” Pet i ti o n er’ s B r . at27. H e off er s no s uppor tforthatar gum ent and no expl anat i on forw hyi ti s cons i ste ntw i th § 1245. 2( a) ( 1) (i i)

. Pet i t i onerfur theremphasi zes thathe i s no l ongeri n r emoval pr ocee di ngs beca us e a f i nal or derhas i s s ued i n hi s pr ocee di ngs . H ow ever , he w as i n r emoval pr ocee di n gs b o th w h en h e fil ed h is m o ti o n w ith the B IA , an d w h en the B IA d e n ied it. F u rth e r m o r e , p e tit io n e r se e k s to h a v e h is c laim rem and ed to the IJ; i f he is no lo n g e r in rem ov al proceed i ng s, u n d e r th e in ter im re g u latio n s th e IJ p lain lylac k s ju risd ictio n to hearthe cl ai m . 8 C

. F. R
. § 245. 2( a) ( 1) ( “U SC I S has j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e an appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus fi l ed byan a lien , u n les s th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e h a s ju r isd ictio n to a d ju d ica te th e a p p lica tio n u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .2 (a ) ( 1 ).”) ; 8 C

. F
. R
. § 1 2 4 5
. 2 (a)(1) ( se e supra )

. T her efor e, pet i t i onerhas o f f e re d n o a rg u m e n t w h y th e n e w re g u latio n s w o u ld b e tter a id hi s caus e than the ver s i on i n for ce a tthe t i m e the B I A deci ded hi s m ot i on. W e expr es s no opi ni on r egar di ng w hetherV akker m i ghtbe ent i t l ed t o r enew hi s appl i cat i on i n anotherm anner , but th e B IA d id n o t er r w h e n it d e n ied h is m o tio n to re m a n d h is proceed i ng s i n o rdert o renew his app l i cat i on befo re the IJ.15 IV Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for r e v i e w.