2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-2-2011

Contant v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3736

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Contant v. Atty Gen USA" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 721.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/721
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 10-3736 and 10-4543

___________

ISAN CONTANT,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A097-532-416)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Andrew R. Arthur

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 1, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 2, 2011)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Isan Contant petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“BIA”). We will deny his consolidated petitions for review.

I.
2

Contant is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago. He entered the United States in 2004 

on a tourist visa, and stayed longer than permitted. In August 2007, he pleaded guilty to 

criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in violation of New York 

law, and in October 2007 he was sentenced to one year imprisonment and two years 

probation. In December 2007, the Department of Homeland Security charged Contant 

with being removable because he had overstayed his visa. Contant was taken into 

custody on March 7, 2008 and was ordered detained without bond.

Contant filed a Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant (Form I360) to obtain a visa pursuant to INA § 204(a)(1) [8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)], as amended by 

the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-386 (Oct. 28, 

2000).1

 On August 24, 2009, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service 

(“USCIS”) denied the I-360 petition because he had not established that he was a person 

of good moral character.2

 1 Contant’s visa petition alleged that he had been subjected to battery or extreme 

cruelty by his United States-citizen spouse.

 A.R. 97-101. In September 2009, Contant filed a motion for 

2 The USCIS explained its reasons for finding that Contant could not show good 

moral character; namely, he pled guilty to a charge of criminal possession of a controlled 

substance, a felony, on August 7, 2007 (although the conviction was on appeal); he was 

arrested three times in the 3-year period prior to filing the petition, and was arrested three 

times in the time period immediately preceding the three year period. The USCIS 

concluded that pursuant to section § 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(“INA”) [8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)], he could not be regarded as a person of good moral 

character.
3

reopening or reconsideration of the USCIS decision.3

In a decision dated September 10, 2010, the BIA stated that the IJ properly applied 

Matter of Hashmi in denying the motion for a continuance, and that the IJ did not violate 

Contant’s due process rights in denying the motion. The BIA also rejected Contant’s 

argument that the IJ erred in failing to advise him that he could apply for asylum or 

related relief, as Contant had not ever expressed to the IJ a fear of returning to Trinidad 

and Tobago, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Contant filed a timely petition for 

review of the decision, docketed here at 10-3736. 

On February 16, 2010, Contant 

applied for Special Rule Cancellation under INA Section 240A(b)(2) [8 U.S.C. 

§ 1299b(b)(2)] in removal proceedings. However, on May 28, 2010, Contant filed a 

motion to withdraw the application, and for a continuance pending the final adjudication 

of his appeal of the I-360 decision. The IJ granted the motion to withdraw the 

cancellation application. As to the motion for a continuance, the IJ noted that although 

he had granted several continuances in the past in order for Contant to pursue his 

application, a continuance was not warranted based on the criteria in Matter of Hashmi,

24 I. & N. Dec. 785 (BIA 2005), primarily because Contant was not likely to be 

successful in his appeal. The IJ predicted that the USCIS would again determine that 

Contant’s visa petition was not prima facie approvable, based on his failure to show good 

moral character. The IJ ordered that Contant be removed to Trinidad and Tobago.

 3 The record shows that both Contant and the IJ referred to the motion as an 

“appeal,” and we will do likewise for ease of reference.
4

In the meantime, Contant filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, including a new 

I-360 petition and an explanation of his criminal history. The BIA denied the motion on 

November 8, 2010 stating that the evidence submitted did not persuade the BIA that his 

application was prima facie approvable. The BIA stated that Contant’s explanation of his 

criminal history did “not overcome the findings made on August 24, 2009 and July 8, 

2010”4

II.

by the USCIS. Contant filed a timely petition for review, docketed at 10-4543. 

The petitions were consolidated for decision.

We first turn to the issues raised by Contant’s petition for review of the September 

10, 2010 decision. Contant argues that the IJ abused his discretion in denying a 

continuance to await the appeal of the denial of Contant’s I-360 application, and that the 

BIA abused its discretion by affirming the IJ’s decision. The Government argues that 

this portion of Contant’s petition for review must be dismissed as moot. We agree. As 

the Government notes, a federal court cannot rule on a case where the outcome cannot 

affect the rights of the litigant. Invista S.À.R.L. v. Rhodia, S.A., 625 F.3d 75, 86 (3d Cir. 

2010). Contant’s “appeal”5

 4 One of the attachments to Contant’s motion to reopen was a decision of the 

USCIS, dated July 8, 2010, denying his motion to reopen or reconsider. A.R. 103-04.

of the I-360 denial was decided on July 8, 2010, even before 

the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision to deny a continuance. See A.R. 103-04 (USCIS 

decision denying motion to reopen or reconsider). Thus, even if we found that the IJ 

5 See supra, n. 3.
5

should have granted a continuance,6

Contant argues the issue is not moot because he still has pending in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit an appeal from the denial of a mandamus 

petition (the petition sought review of the denial of the I-360 application), and that he 

could still seek a continuance pending the Second Circuit’s decision. We take judicial 

notice that the Second Circuit granted the Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance in 

that appeal on July 5, 2011, see Contant v. Napolitano, C.A. No. 10-5301-pr (2d Cir. Jul. 

5, 2011); and, in any event, whether Contant could seek a continuance for another reason 

has no bearing on whether this Court could grant effectual relief on Contant’s claim that 

the IJ and BIA erred here. We thus dismiss this portion of the petition for review.

there is no relief we could grant at this point.

Contant’s remaining challenge to the September decision is that the BIA erred in 

rejecting his argument that the IJ failed to inform him of his ability to apply for various 

forms of relief from removal, and/or cancellation of removal. The IJ mentioned several 

times that he could possibly grant Contant voluntary departure, see A.R. 286, 288, 291, 

but Contant did not indicate that he was interested in that relief.7

 

 Contant was aware that 

the USCIS had found him ineligible for adjustment of status through his I-360 

application. The IJ urged him to consider applying for cancellation of removal, but 

6 As the reader will infer from the discussion in the following section, we do not 

believe the IJ erred in denying a continuance.

7 Contant was clearly aware of this form of relief. At one point in a hearing he 

stated to the IJ, “I understand that you’ve got to tell me what I’m eligible for, like 
6

Contant insisted that he did not want to pursue that application. A.R. 283-88, 290-92, 

309-12, 318-19, 332-33. 

The only remaining relief would be asylum, withholding of removal, or protection 

under the Convention Against Torture. Contant notes that his sworn affidavit in the 

record states that he feared persecution or torture if he were to be removed from the 

United States. It is true that Contant answered “Yes” to the affidavit form’s question, 

“Do you have any fear of persecution or torture should you be removed from the United 

States?” A.R. 471. However, while Contant was represented by counsel, he was asked 

what relief he would be applying for, and his attorney mentioned only the pending I-360. 

A.R. 224. As the Government points out, Contant had twenty-two hearings before the IJ, 

and never once expressed a fear of returning to Trinidad and Tobago. Further, even if the 

IJ should have informed Contant about asylum and related relief, Contant cannot show 

that he was prejudiced by the IJ’s failure. Contant complained of the IJ’s alleged failure 

in his brief to the BIA and in his brief in this Court, but he did not affirmatively state in 

either brief that he has any fear of returning to his home country, nor did he explain the 

basis of any such fear. We therefore deny the claim.

III.

We now turn to Contant’s claim that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his 

motion to reopen. The decision to deny a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241, 251 (3d Cir. 2006). Under that standard, the 

 

voluntary departure . . . .” A.R. 342.
7

BIA’s decision may be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” 

Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). The BIA, quoting 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(1), noted that a “motion to reopen shall not be granted unless it appears that 

the evidence sought to be offered ‘was not available and could not have been discovered 

or presented at the former hearing.’” The BIA denied Contant’s motion because the 

evidence he presented was not “material evidence which would affect the outcome of his 

proceedings.” A.R. 2. The BIA stated that the evidence did not persuade it “that his 

proffered [I-360] application is prima facie approvable,” and that his “proffered 

explanation regarding his criminal history [did] not overcome the findings made on 

August 24, 2009 and July 8, 2010” by the USCIS. Id. We do not find that the BIA 

abused its discretion in denying the motion. Contant’s prior I-360 application had been 

denied, and his motion to reconsider or reopen had also been denied, based on his failure 

to show good moral character. The documents that Contant submitted did not negate the 

USCIS’s findings that he had been convicted of a crime and that he had been arrested a 

number of times. Thus, there was very little likelihood that the USCIS would change its 

mind and grant a new application based on the same application and the same facts 

regarding Contant’s moral character.8

 8

 Contant argues his conviction should not have been considered for purposes of 

determining whether he has good moral character, because the conviction was still on 

appeal. However, the cases cited by Contant concern finality of a conviction for purposes 

of removability. In contrast, a conviction need not be final to be considered as a factor in 

determining whether an applicant is a person of good moral character, by statutory 

definition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) [INA § 101(f)] (providing, inter alia, that a person 

 Because the application was unlikely to be 
8

successful, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss Contant’s petition in part, and deny the 

remaining claims of the consolidated petitions for review.

 

cannot be found to have good moral character if he “admits the commission” of certain 

controlled substance violations); see also e.g., Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028, 1031 

(9th Cir. 2009) (alien who “admitted to aiding his wife to enter the United States illegally” 

cannot establish good moral character).