FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 27, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16613

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 96- 114- 075 M O H A M M E D Z E E S H A N Z A F A R , P et i t i on er , ve r s us U . S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ N o. 04- 16689

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 96- 114- 077 A M IR M O H A M M E D H A B IB L A K H A N I, P et i t i on er , ve r s us U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R e s p o n d e n t.2 ________________________ N o. 04- 16750

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 96- 114- 175 N IZ A R G H U L A M A N I, P et i t i on er , ve r s us U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

D e c i s i ons of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r27, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d R O N E Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R O N E Y , C i rc ui tJudg e: P e titio n e r s a r e liv in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s o n e x p ir e d v is a s . S e p a r a te r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s w e r e in itia te d a g a in s t a ll th r e e in M a r c h a n d A p r il, 2 0 0 3 . E ac h m ov ed for c on t i nu ance s w hi l e aw ai t i ng l abor cert i fi ca t i on s. T hey f i l ed pet i t i on s s ee ki ng re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A ff ai rs ’ (B IA ) s um m ary a f f irm a n c e s o f

th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e s ’ d e n ia ls o f th e irm o tio n s to c o n tin u e th e ir r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . T he gove rnm e ntc ont e nds tha tthi s C ourti s w i thout3

j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear thi s c as e pursuantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( B )( i i ). W e hol d that w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde rthi s s t a tut e t o r e vi e w the de ni a l s of m ot i ons t o c ont i nue r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , butthe r e w a s none the l e s s no abus e of di s c r e t i on i n the i m m i g rat i o n j u d g es’ d eci si o n s d o so . W e th u s d en y th e p et i t i o n s. P e t i t i one r s A m i rm oha m m e d H abi b L a kha ni , M oha m m e d Z e e s ha n Z a f a r , a nd N i zar G hu l am ani ar e nat i ves and ci t i ze ns of P aki st an. T he fa ct s and procedural h i s t o r i e s o f

th e i ri n d i v i d u a l i z e d c a s e s a r e s e tf o rth b e l o w. A m ir m o h a m m e d H a b ib L a kh a n i L ak h an i en t ered th e U n i t ed S t at es o n o r ab o u tJu l y 9 , 1 9 9 5 as a n o n im m ig r a n t v is ito rau th o r iz e d to r e m a in in th e c o u n tryu n til A u g u s t 1 0 , 1 9 9 5 . O n M a r c h 2 7 , 2 0 0 1 , L a k h a n i f ile d a n ap p lic a tio n f

o rlab o rc e rtif

ic a tio n . O n A p r il 14 , 20 03 , the D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty ( “ D H S ”) i ni t i at ed re m ov al pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns tL akha ni , c ha r gi ng hi m a s anoni m m i gr a ntw ho r e m a i ne d i n the U n ite d S ta te s lo n g e rth a n p e rm itte d p u r s u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . O n J u ly 16 , 20 03 , L akhani appeare d i n i m m i grat i on court , w here he adm i tt ed the fa ctual a lle g a tio n s a n d c o n c e d e d r e m o v ab ility . I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e G . M a c k e n z ie R a s t, h o w ev er, ad

j o u rn ed th e m att er u n t i l A u g u st6 , 2 0 0 3 t o ascert ai n w h atrel i ef, i f an y, L akhani w ou l d b e s ee ki ng . A tthe A ug ust6 h eari ng , L akhani ’ s c ou nsel advi se d J u d g e R a s t th a t L a k h a n i h a d ap e n d in g lab o rc e rtif ic a tio n a n d r e q u e s te d th a t h is r e m ova l be c ont i nue d on tha tba s i s . J udge R a s tde ni e d tha tc ont i nua nc e rul i ng, “ no s t a tut e [ or ] r e gul a t i on [ or ] c a s e author i tyw hi c h pr ovi de s tha ti ti s appr opr i a t e f or4

th e C o u rtt o co n t i n u e cases u n d er su ch ci rcu m st an ces. C o n seq u en t l y th e req u est for [ a] cont i nu ance un der s uch ci rc um st ance s w i l l be deni ed. ” Jud ge R as tthen ordered L akhani re m ov ed fr om the U ni t ed S t at es . T he B IA sum m ar i l y a ff i rm ed J udge R a s t ’ s de c i s i on. M oh am m e d Z e e s h an Z af ar Z afar en t ered th e U n i t ed S t at es o n o r ab o u tS ep t em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 0 , as a n o n im m ig r a n t v is ito rau th o r iz e d to r e m a in in th e c o u n tryu n til M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 . On Ap r i l 2 7 , 2 0 0 1 , Z a f

a r ’ s f a th e rf i l e d a n ap p l i c a t i o n f

o rl ab o rc e rt i f

i c a t i o n . On M a r c h 12, 2003, the D H S i ni t i a t e d r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns tZ a f a r , c ha r gi ng hi m , l i ke L akhani , as a non i m m i grantw ho re m ai ned i n the U ni t ed S t at es l on ger than p erm i tt ed pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (1)( B ). O n Jul y 16, 20 03 , Z af ar ap p eared b efo re th e sam e i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e (Ju d g e R ast ) as L ak h an i . Z afar also ad m i tt ed th e factu al al l eg at i o n s an d co n ced ed rem o v ab i l i ty. S i m i l arl y, Ju d g e R ast ad jo u rn ed th e m atter u n ti l A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 3 . A t th at A u g u st 6 h ea rin g , Z af ar ’s coun se l advi se d Jud ge R as tthatZ af ar ’ s f ather w as i n rem ov al proceedi ng s and had a pendi ng l abor cert i fi ca t i on . C ou nsel re qu es t ed thatZ af ar ’ s c as e be c on sol i dat ed w i th hi s f

a the r ’ s c a s e . Z a f

a ra r gue d tha tbe c aus e he w a s the n unde rthe a ge of tw en ty-o n e, h e m ig h t qu alify a s a d er iv ativ e b en ef iciary o f h is fa th er ’s em pl oym ent -bas ed vi sapet i t i on i f i tw as ul t i m at el y app roved. A s s uch, Z af ar m o v ed th e im m ig ra ti o n co u rt fo r a co n ti n u an ce u n ti l th e d isp o siti o n o f h is fa th er ’s l ab o r cert i fi cat i o n . Ju d g e R astfo u n d th atth ere w as:5 n o c a s e au th o r ityo rs ta tu to ry[ o r ] r e g u la to ryau th o r ity w hi ch autho ri ze s or s ug gest s the approp ri at enes s of a cont i nu ance w here l abor cert i fi ca t i on has notye tbeen approv ed by the l abor autho ri t i es . In thi s part i cul arca se , the si tuat i on i s tw i ce re m ov ed fr om thatproces s. U nd er the ci rc um st ance s, the C ou rtdo es no tvi ew i tas approp ri at e thatthe m att erbe cont i nu ed for s uch p u rp o s e s . Judg e R as tthen o rder ed Z af arre m ov ed fr om the U ni t ed S t at es t o P aki st an. Z af ar appe a l e d tha tde c i s i on t o the B I A , w hi c h s um m a r i l ya f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on. N i z a r G hul a m a ni G hul a m a ni e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s a s anoni m m i gr a ntvi s i t oron J une 7, 1 9 9 7 , w ith av is aau th o r iz in g h im to s ta yin th e c o u n tryf o rn o lo n g e rth a n s ix m onths . O n A pr i l 30, 2001, G hul a m a ni f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

orl aborc e rt i f

i c a t i on. O n M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , th e D H S in itia te d r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s p u r s u a n t to § 1227( a ) ( 1) ( B ) . O n J a nua ry8, 2004, G hul a m a ni appe a r e d be f or e I m m i gr a t i on J udge P aul L . J ohns on a nd a l s o c onc e de d r e m ovabi l i ty . H i s c ouns e l a dvi s e d J udge John son thathe had a pend i ng l abor cert i fi ca t i on and request ed thathi s r em ov al proceedi ng be cont i nu ed on thatbasi s a s w el l . In a w ri tt en deci si on , w hi ch w as dr a f t e d a nd da t e d m onths pr i ort o tha the a r i ng on S e pt e m be r25, 2003, the i m m i grat i on j ud ge deni ed G hu l am ani ’ s r equestfor acont i nu ance , fi nd i ng , af t er or a l a r gum e nt s on the m ot i on, tha tthe r e w a s notthe r e qui s i t e good c aus e f or c ont i nua nc e a s pr ovi de d i n 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 29. J udge J ohns on f ound tha tthe ap p r o v a l o f

ap e n d in g lab o rc e rtif

ic a tio n w a s “s p e c u la tiv e ” a n d d id n o t e n title6

G hul a m a ni t o ac ont i nua nc e . T he B I A a f f i rm e d the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on w i thoutopi ni on. Ju r i s d i c t i on t o R e vi e w D e n i alof M ot i on s t o C on t i n u e R e m ovalP r oc e e d i n gs T h e g o v ern m en tco n t en d s th atth i s C o u rtl ack s j u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th ese pe t i t i ons , w hi c h c ha l l e nge the i m m i gr a t i on j udge s ’ de c i s i ons t o notc ont i nue the p e t i t i o n e r s ’ r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . I td i r e c t s u s t o th e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f I NA § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( ii) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( ii) ( 2 0 0 0 ) , w h ic h s ta te s in r e le v a n t p a rt, “N o tw ith s ta n d in g a n yo th e rp r o v is io n o f la w , n o c o u rt s h a ll h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w . . . a n y. . . d e c is io n o ra c tio n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l f

o rw h ic h is spec i fi ed u n d e rth is s u b c h ap te rto b e in th e d is c r e tio n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l.” T h a t is , it c ont e nds tha tbe c aus e the gr a nt i ng of c ont i nua nc e s a r e di s c r e t i ona ry , thi s “ door c l o s i n g ” s t a tu t e s tr i p s th i s Co u rto f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e m. P e t i t i one r s c ont e nd, how e ve r , tha ta n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s author i tyt o gr a nt a c o n ti n u an ce is n o t d irec tl y f o u n d “u n d erth is su b ch ap ter,” w h ich is “S UB CHAP TER I I ” o f c h ap te r1 2 , T itle 8 , e n title d “A lie n s a n d N a tio n a lity ,” b u t in s te a d is f o u n d in 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 9 , af

e d e r a l r e g u la tio n im p le m e n te d b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l. T he r e f or e , the ya r gue , § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) doe s notpr e ve ntthi s C ourtf r om ha vi ng j u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th ei r p et i t i o n s. W e h av e j u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew an i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e’ s d eci si o n t o d en y a m ot i on t o c ont i nue ar e m ova l he a r i ng. S e c t i on 1252( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) pr e c l ude s our r e vi e w of

di s c r e t i ona ryde c i s i ons of the A tt orne yG e ne r a l i n on l y th e s p e c if

ic7

c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h e r e th e “d e c is io n o ra c tio n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l th e au th o r ity f o rw h ic h is sp eci

f i ed u n der th is su b ch a

p ter t o b e i n the di sc re t i on of the A tt orney G ener al . . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( B )( i i ) ( em ph as i s s up pl i ed). T he express ed author i tyof

a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge t o gr a ntorde nyam ot i on t o c ont i nue ahe a r i ng i s n o t f o u n d u n d e rth e p a rtic u la r“s u b c h ap te r ” w h e r e § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( ii) is co n tain ed , w h ich is “S UBCHAPTER I I ” of c hapt e r12, T i t l e 8, e nt i t l e d “ A l i e ns a nd N at i on al i ty. ” Se e g e n e r a lly , 8 U . S . C . , c h. 12 ( e nt i t l e d, “ I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty ” ) . I ns t e a d, the author i tyof a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge t o gr a ntam ot i on f or c o n tin u a n c e is d e r iv e d s o le lyf r o m r e g u la tio n s p r o m u lg a te d b yth e I N S . See 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 29 ( s t a t i ng tha t“ [ t ] he i m m i gr a t i on j udge m a ygr a ntam ot i on f or cont i nu ance for goo d cause show n”). T he phr a s e “ s pe c i f

i e d unde rthi s s ubc hapt e r ” r e f e r s t o s ubc hapt e rI I of C h ap te r1 2 , 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 1

– 1 3 7 8 . Se e Y e rko v ic h v . A s h c r o

ft , 381 F . 3d 990, 992 (10th C i r. 20 04 ). C on gres s has prec i se l y c arved-ou tthe st atut ori l y- prov i ded di s c r e t i ona rypow e r s of the A tt orne yG e ne r a l w i thi n 8 U . S . C . s e c t i ons 1151 thr ough 1378 a nd, i n turn, ha s e xpr e s s l ypr ohi bi t e d “ a nyc ourt ” f r om r e vi e w i ng th em . T h ere are m yri ad C o n g ressi o n al l y-d efi n ed , d i scret i o n ary statutory po w er s of the A tt orne yG e ne r a l a rt i c ul a t e d w i thi n s e c t i ons 1151 thr ough 1378. F or e xa m pl e , the “ A tt orne yG e ne r a l i n hi s di s c r e t i on” m a yw a i ve pa rt i c ul a rvi s aor p a s s p o rt r e q u ir e m e n ts . Se e, e .g ., 8 U . S . C . § 1184( d) ( 2000) ( not i ng tha tthe “A tto rn e y G e n e r a l i n his dis c r e t i on m ayw ai ve the re qu i re m entthatthe part i es8

ha ve pr e vi ous l ym e ti n pe r s on” ) ( e m pha s i s s uppl i e d) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1181( b) ( 2000) ( n o tin g th a t th e “A tto rn e yG e n e r a l i n his dis c r e t i on ” m ayre adm i ti nd i vi du al

“ w i thoutbe i ng r e qui r e d t o obt a i n apa s s port. . . ” ) ( e m pha s i s s uppl i e d) . T he A tt orne yG e ne r a l a l s o “ m a yauthor i z e i m m i gr a t i on of f i c e r s ” t o r e c or d, a m ong other thi ng s, the nam es , age and se x o f “ every r es i dentpers on l ea vi ng the U ni t ed S t a t e s byw a yof

the C a na di a n orM e xi c a n bor de r s f orpe rm a ne ntr e s i de nc e i n a fore i gn coun try . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 1(c) . A l tho ug h n otbefore us, these di sc re t i on ary deci si on s – st atut ory autho ri ty f or w hi ch C on gres s “ spec i fi ed un der” subchapt erII

–o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l w o u ld p r e s u m ab lyn o t b e r e v ie w ab le b y“a n yc o u rt” un der the j uri sdi ct i on al -s tri pp i ng prov i si on s of § 12 52 (a )( 2)(b)( i i ). T he di s c r e t i ona ryde c i s i ons e xe r c i s e d he r e bythe i m m i gr a t i on j udge s t o not cont i nu e the re m ov al hear i ng s w er e not“ spec i fi ed” und ersubchapt erII of chapt er 12, t i t l e 8, byC ongr e s s . T he gove rnm e ntdoe s notc i t e , norha ve w e s o i de nt i f i e d, any e xp re ss ed autho ri ty s t at i ng the i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s autho ri ty t o con t i nu e a r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g is “s p e c if ie d u n d e r ” s u b c h ap te rI I . I n s te a d , th e p a rtie s s e e m to be i n agreement thatthi s “ di sc re t i on ” i s a dm i ni stra t i vel y- det erm i ned and proscr i bed t o the i m m i grat i on j ud ges vi a 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 29 , a f eder al re gu l at i on i m pl em ent ed bythe A tt orne yG e ne r a l . S i nc e onl ythe pa rt i c ul a rdi s c r e t i ona ryauthor i t i e s of the A tt orney G ener al expres sl y “ spec i fi ed” i n sec t i on s 115 1 throu gh 13 78 ar e barre d f r om ourr e vi e w unde r§ 1252( a ) ( 2) ( b) ( i i ) , a nd the di s c r e t i ona ryauthor i tyt o gr a nt o rd e n yac o n tin u a n c e in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s is n o t e x p r e s s lyc o n ta in e d w ith in9

se ct i on s 115 1 throu gh 13 78 , w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew tho se di sc re t i on ary d e c is io n s . See Zha o v. G on zales , 404 F . 3d 295, 303 ( 5th C i r . 2005) ( j ur i s di c t i on un der § 12 52 (a )( 2)(B )( i i ) t o revi ew deni al of B IA ’ s di sc re t i on ary m ot i on t o reopen be c aus e the B I A ha d note xe r c i s e d a nys t a tut or i l ypr ovi de d di s c r e t i on unde rthe subchapt erof t i t l e 8 go verni ng i m m i grat i on proceedi ng s, bu ti nst ea d h ad exerc i se d d is c r e tio n a s “d e lin e a te d ” b yar e g u la tio n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l) ; Me di naMo r a le s v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 7 1 F .3 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 8

– 2 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( s a m e ) ; s e e al s o Subhan v . A s h c r o ft , 38 3 F . 3d 59 1, 59 5 (7th C i r. 20 04 ) ( fi nd i ng j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew deni al of m ot i on t o c ont i nue r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs unde r§ 1252( a ) ( 2) ( B ) , buta l s o f i ndi ng a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g c o n tin u a n c e ) ; b u t s e e Y e rko v ic h v . A s h c r o

ft , 381 F .3 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 5 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d is m is s in g p e titio n , a n d h o ld in g th a t “8 U .S .C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) ba r s r e vi e w of the [ i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ] di s c r e t i ona ryde c i s i on d e n y in g p e titio n e r ’s m o tio n f o rac o n tin u an c e ” ) ; O n

y in kw a v . A s h c r o

ft , 376 F . 3d 7 9 7 , 7 9 9 ( 8 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( s a m e ) ; Ko e n i gv . I NS , 6 4 F e d . A p p x . 9 9 6 , 9 9 8 ( 6 th C ir . 20 03 ) ( un pu bl i shed) ( ho l di ng that“ thi s c ou rtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew w hatw as a purel y di sc re t i on ary dec i si on of the i m m i grat i on j ud ge”) . O urde c i s i on i s f

urthe rs upport e d bythe “ s tr ong pr e s um pt i on i n f a vorof j ud i ci al re vi ew of adm i ni stra t i ve ac t i on . ” IN S v. St . C yr , 5 3 3 U .S . 2 8 9 , 2 9 8 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . B ec ause deni al s of m ot i on s t o con t i nu e are no tst atut ori l y- proscr i bed d i sc re t i on ary a c ts “s p e c if

ie d u n d e rth is s u b s e c tio n ” to th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, a s e n u m e r a te d in § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( i i ) , w e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e m.10 T h e I m m i gr at i on Ju d ge s D i d N ot A b u s e T h e i r D i s c r e t i on A l though w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r§ 1252( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , the i m m i gr a t i on j udge s none the l e s s di d notabus e the i rdi s c r e t i on by de ny i ng pe t i t i one r s ’ m ot i ons f orc ont i nua nc e s t o a w a i tde c i s i ons on the i rpe ndi ng r e que s t s f orl abor ce rt i fi ca t i on s. T he grantof a c on t i nu ance i s w i thi n the i m m i grat i on j ud ges’ broad d is c r e tio n . Se e O lv e r a v . I NS , 5 0 4 F .2 d 1 3 7 2 , 1 3 7 4 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 4 ) ; se e al so W i t ter v . I NS , 11 3 F . 3d 54 9, 55 5 (5th C i r. 19 97 ) ( “ T he grantof a c on t i nu ance of a de port a t i on he a r i ng l i e s w i thi n the s ound di s c r e t i on of the i m m i gr a t i on j udge , w ho m a ygr a ntac ont i nua nc e upon as how i ng of good c aus e . ” ) . S e c t i on 245( i ) of the IN A , 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 5 (i )(1 ), p erm i t s a cert ai n cl ass o f al i en s w h o w ere o th erw i se i nel i gi bl e t o ad

j u stth ei r t em p o rary residen tst atu s i n th e U n i t ed S t at es t o p ay a pe na l tyf e e f ora dj us t i ng the i rs t a tus t o tha tof a“ pe rm a ne ntr e s i de nt ” a nd be consi dere d “ grandfathere d” i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es , i f he i s the “ benefi ci ary” of an appl i ca t i on for l abor cert i fi ca t i on thatw as prop er l y f i l ed by A pri l 30 , 20 01 , and w as “ap p r o v ab le w h e n f

ile d .” I N A § 2 4 5 ( i) ( 1 ) , 8 C .F .R . § 2 4 5 .1 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i) ( B ) .

“ A ppr ovabl e w he n f

i l e d m e a ns tha t , a s of

the da t e of

the f i l i ng, ” the appl i c a t i on f

or l abor cert i fi ca t i on w as “ prop er l y f i l ed, m er i t ori ou s i n fac t , and n on -f ri vo l ou s . . . . ” 8 C . F . R . § 245. 10( a ) ( 3) . O nc e the A tt orne yG e ne r a l r e c e i ve s the appl i c a t i on f or adj ustm entof st atus and the approp ri at e f ee , he “ m ay ” a dj ustthe st atus i f the al i en

“ i s el i g i b l e t o recei v e an i m m i g ran tv i sa an d i s ad m i ssi b l e, ” an d “ an i m m i g ran tv i sa11

i s i m m edi at el y avai l abl e t o the al i en atthe t i m e the appl i ca t i on i s f i l ed. ” I N A 245( i ) ( 2) , 8 U . S . C . § 1255( i ) ( 2) . A n i m m i gr a ntvi s ac a nnot , how e ve r , be is s u e d to th e a lie n u n til th e lab o rc e rtif ic a tio n is ap p r o v e d . I N A § 2 0 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( C ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) ; se e general l y I n re H -A , 22 I & N D e c . 728, 741 ( B I A 1999) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ appl i c a t i ons f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus tha tc oul d notbe s i m ul t a ne ous l yf

i l e d be c aus e t o f

i l e f orthi r d- pr e f

e r e nc e s t a tus r e qui r e d pr i or approv al by the U ni t ed S t at es D epartm entof L abor of l abor cert i fi ca t i on ”) . H e r e , s i nc e a l l tha tthe pe t i t i one r s of f e r e d the i m m i gr a t i on j udge s w a s the

“ spec ul at i ve” possi bi l i ty thatatsom e poi nti n the f uture th ey m ay r e c e iv e , o rin Z af ar ’ s c as e, hi s f

ather m ay r e c e iv e , lab o rc e rtif ic a tio n , p e titio n e r s h a v e f a ile d to dem on stra t e thatthey had a v is a pe t i t i on “ i m m ed i at el y av ai l ab l e” t o th em b ecau se the yc oul d notha ve f

i l e d a n “ appr ovabl e ” vi s ape t i t i on w i thoutthe l abor c e rt i f i c a t i o n i n th e f

i r s tp l a c e , w h i c h i s ap r e r e q u i s i t e f o rr e l i e f u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 5 ( i) a n d 8 C .F .R . § 2 4 5 .1 0 ( a ) ( 3 ) . Se e, e . g . , O lu y e m iv . I NS , 902 F . 2d 1032, 1034 ( 1s tC i r . 1990) . A tthe t i m e of the i m m i gr a t i on j udge s ’ de ni a l s of the pe t i t i one r s ’ m ot i ons t o c ont i nue the i rr e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , i ti s c l e a rtha tthe pet i t i on er s w er e i nel i gi bl e f or adj ustm ent s t o p erm anentre si dentst atus un der § 1 2 5 5 ( i) a n d th e r e th u s w e r e n o v is a s “im m e d ia te lya v a ilab le ” to th e m . See O n y e m e v . I NS , 1 4 6 F .3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 4 ( 4 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( f in d in g n o ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n in B I A ’ s a f f i rm a nc e of

i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de ni a l of m ot i on t o c ont i nue de port a t i on12

pr oc e e di ngs w he r e pe t i t i one rha d notm e ta l l s t a tut oryr e qui r e m e nt s f ora dj us tm e nt o f s ta tu s ) ; O lu

y e m i, 9 0 2 F .2 d a t 1 0 3 4 ( s a m e ) ; se e general l y U ni ted Stat es v. Mc C utc he on , 8 6 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 0 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) ( n o ti n g th at trial j u d g e’s d is c r e tio n a ryd e c is io n to d e n ym o tio n to s e v e rtr ia l w a s to b e r e v ie w e d b yth is C ou rton appeal by vi ew i ng the ca se as i tappeare d t o the tri al j ud ge “ a t th a t t i me ”) ( e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ) . B a s e d o n th is r e c o r d , th e r e w a s n o ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n in d en yi n g th ei r m o t i o n s t o co n t i n u e th ei r rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s.

N o D ue Pr o c e s s o r Equa lPr o t e c t i o n Vi o l a t i o ns E v e n if w e d id n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n , w e w o u ld s till h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w s u b s ta n tia l c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . Se e Mo o r e v . A s h c r o ft , 251 F . 3d 919, 923–94 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . P e t i t i one r s a s s e rtvi ol a t i ons of both the i rdue pr oc e s s a nd eq u al p ro t ect i o n ri g h t s. P e t i t i one r s a r gue tha tthe i rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n the i m m i gr a t i on j udge s di d notc ont i nue the i rr e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs l ong e nough f or the m t o m e e ta l l the ne c e s s a ryr e qui r e m e nt s f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus . T he r e i s no const i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed ri gh tt o d i sc re t i on ary r el i ef , w hi ch i s the re l i ef

re qu es t ed h e r e . Se e T

e f e l v . R e no , 18 0 F . 3d 12 86 , 13 00 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). P e t i t i one r s ’ e qua l pr ot e c t i on r i ght s w e r e notvi ol a t e d bybe i ng r e qui r e d t o be re gi st er ed i n the N at i on al S ec uri ty E ntry -E xi tR egi stra t i on S ys t em , w hi ch they ar gu e pre ci pi t at ed them bei ng pl ac ed i n these disc re t i on ary r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs by13

th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, w h e r e o th e rn o n - P a k is ta n i c itiz e n s w e r e n o t s o r e q u ir e d to r e g is te r . Se e R e n o v . A me r i c a n -A r a b A n t i -Dis c r i mi n a t i o n C o mm . , 525 U . S . 471, 4 8 9

– 9 2 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( f

in d in g th a t th e I N S r e ta in s in h e r e n t p r o s e c u to r ia l d is c r e tio n a s to w h e th e rto b r in g r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s ) . T h e r e is n o s u p p o rt in th e r e c o r d f o rth is a r g u m e n t. P e titio n e r s n e ith e rc ite , n o rh a v e w e id e n tif ie d , a n yc a s e s u p p o rtin g th e ir se cond equal prot ec t i on ar gu m entthat“ i n o ther j uri sdi ct i on s” i m m i grat i on j ud ges

“ r out i ne l ya dm i ni s tr a t i ve l yc l os e pr oc e e di ngs w he r e the be ne f i c i a ryha s ape ndi ng s e c tio n 2 4 5 ( i) lab o rc e rtif ic a tio n s , h o w e v e rin A tla n tath e yd id n o t.” W e r e je c t th is e q u a l p r o te c tio n a r g u m e n t a s w e ll. T he pet i t i on s are there fore DE NI E D.