Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 43(c) (2), Attorne y Gene ral Er ic H. * Holder, Jr. is automatically substitut ed for

former Attorney Gene ral Micha el B . Mukasey as responde nt in this case . 08-2117-a g Wegla rz v. Holder U

N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER RULINGS BY SUMM ARY O RDER DO NOT H AVE PRECEDENTIAL EF F ECT. CITATIO N TO A SU MMAR

Y ORDE R FILED ON OR A FT ERJANU AR Y 1, 2007 , I S PERMITT ED A ND IS G OV E RN E D BY FE D E R A L R U L E OF A PPE L LATE P ROC E D U R E 3 2. 1 A N D T HIS C OU R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 32.1.1 . WH EN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT F ILED WITH THI S COURT, A PARTY M U S T CITE EITHER TH E FEDERAL AP P ENDIX OR AN ELEC T R ONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATI ON “SUM MARY ORDER”) . A PARTY CITING A S U MMA R

Y OR D E R MU S T S E R

V E A C OPY OF IT ON A N Y PA R T Y N OT RE PR E S E N T E D BY COUNSEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 12 day th of January , two thousand ten. Pr e se nt: J OSEPH M. McL AUGHL I N, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges
.

________________________________________________ GRZ EGORZ WEGL ARZ , BEA TA TRZ ASKA,

Pe tit ion e rs , v. No. 08-2117-a g ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., Un ite d St ate s A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, * Respondent
.

________________________________________________2

F or Pe tit ion e rs : G AR TH A. M OL AND ER , Bohe mia, N.Y. F or Re sp on de nt: J UL I A J. T YL ER , Trial Attorne y (Tony West, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, Civil Divisi on, Ba rry J . Pettinato, Assistant Director , on the brief ), Off ice of Immigration L itigation, U.S. Depa

rtment of Just ice, Washing ton, D. C.
Petition for reviewof an or der of the B oard of

Immigration Appeals (“ BIA”) aff irming a n order of the Immigration J udg e (“ I J ”) de nying a continuance and orde ringthat petitioner be
remove d. ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and DE CREED that th e pe tit ion fo r r e vie w b e and

he re by is DE NI ED
. Petitioners Grzeg orz W eg larz and his wife, B eata Trzaska, see k revie w of a final orde r of
remova l issued by

the B IA on April 3, 2008, which c oncluded that the I J proper ly denied petitioners’ four

th reque st for a c ontinuance be cause they failed to e stablish eligibility for “g randf ather ing” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) § 245(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1) , and fa iled to show that a visa is curr ently available to Weglarz. W e assume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th t he fa c ts, pr oc e dura l hi sto ry , a nd sp e c if ic atio n o f i ssu e s o n a

pp e a l. Where the B IA af

firms the dec ision of the I J and close ly trac ks the I J ’s re asoning , we revie w the dec isions of the BIA and the I J toge ther. See W angchuk v . Dep’ t of Homeland Sec

. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 ( 2d Cir. 2006). The I J may g rant a reque st for a c ontinuance at his or her dis c re tio n “ fo r g oo d c a

us e sh own. ” 8 C. F .R. §§ 10 03 .2 9, 12 40 .6 ; se e als o Matter of Sibrun , 1 8 I. & N . Dec . 354, 356-57 (B IA 1983). A de nial of a c ontinuance is re viewed f or abuse of discretion. See M

organ v. Gonzales , 4 45 F .3 d 5 49 , 5 51 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ). Ab us e of dis c re tio n, inWe have since rema nded at lea st two other ca ses with a similar instruction. See 1 Ghoniem v . Mukase

y , 305 Fe d. Appx. 738, 740 (2d Ci r. Jan. 6, 2009) (re mandingbeca use there was a “nee d for standa

rds in order

to determine when continuanc es ar e within the ra ng e of permissible dec isions and when they are not”); Ziemak v. H

older , N o . 0 8
- 2 5 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 WL 412941, at *1 (2d Cir. F eb. 19, 2009) ( same). Refer ence s to W eg larz as lead pe titioner also include Trzaska , his spouse. 2 3 turn, is found wher e the “ decision re sts on an err or of law . . . or a c lear ly

err oneous fa ctual findingor [the] decision . . . ca nnot be locate d within the rang e of pe rmissible decisions.” Id. at 551-52 (inter

nal quotation marks omitted). In Rajah v. Muk

asey , 544 F.3d 449 ( 2d Cir. 2008), we r emande d to the BIA see king clar ification of the a

pplicable standa

rds in deter

mining under

what cir cumstance s a denia l of a continuance constitutes abuse of disc retion. See id. at 450. The B IA re cently decide d Matter of 1 Rajah , 2 5 I . & N. De c . 1 27 (B IA N ov . 1 2, 20 09 ), wh ic h a dd re sse s o ur inq uir y . A s p art

of its
rea soning, the BIA stated that “ [i ]n determining whe ther g ood cause exis ts for a c ontinuance . . . the foc us of the inquiry

is the likelihood of succe ss on the adjustment application.” Id. at 130. Wegla rz enter ed the United States w ithout ins pection. He is theref ore e ligible f

or 2 adjustment of status only

if he is “grandf

ather ed” unde r I

NA § 245(i). See8 C.F.R § 1245.10(b); see also Butt v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 130, 132 ( 2d Cir. 2007). To qualify as g randf ather ed under the provision, an alien must be the benef iciary of either a petition for c lassification under I NA § 204, 8 U.S.C. § 1154, or an application for a labor cer tification under I

NA § 212(a )(5) (A), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5) (A), pr operly filed on or be fore April 30, 2001. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(i)(1)( A)- (C). The be nefic iary

of a pe tition or application filed af ter January

4, 1998 must also have bee n phy sic a lly

pr e se nt i n th e Un ite d St ate s o n D e c e mbe r 2 1, 20 00 . 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 5( i) (1 )( C) ; s e e als o Bu tt , 500 F.3d at 132-33.4

Be cause any

labor c ertifica

tions or petitions W eg larz filed wer e filed a fter January 4, 1998, to be elig ible for a djustment of status he must, as a threshold matter , demonstrate that he was phy sically

prese nt in the United States on Dec ember 21, 2000. In findingthat Wegla rz had failed to de monstrate that he is g randf ather ed under

I NA § 245(i), the I J and B IA re lied on Wegla rz’s asylum application, which states that he enter ed the c ountry on J uly 14, 2004. Wegla rz maintains, however , that he wa s prese nt in the country “seve ral months befor e Apr il 30, 2001,” and be cause he also a sserts that he is prope rly g randf ather ed under

I NA § 245(i), presumably

he also a rgues that he w as phy sically prese nt in the United States even e arlier , on Dec ember

21, 2000. The only rec ord support for

this is an old labor cer

tification Weg larz claims was
a ba nd on e d, wh ic h in dic ate s th at he wo rk e d a s a n o rn ame nta l pl a ste re r f

or a c omp any in B oh e mia , N e w Y or

k, fr om Janu ary

19 98 until F e br

ua ry 20 00 . H ow e ve r, thi s d oe s n ot e sta bli sh that he wa s phy sically

prese nt in the United States on a date ten months after the job ended, a

nd there is no other indication that he wa s. Counsel below, despite numer ous available avenue s by which to introduce into the rec ord evide nce that Weglarz was prese nt in the United States on De c e mbe r 2 1, 20 00 fa ile d to do so ; c ouns e l on a pp e a l a lso a

pp e ars un a

ble to m ake any

sp e c if ic
re pr e se ntatio n a s to wh e n We g larz e nte re d th e c ountr y . T hu s, the a g e nc y

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

de nyingWeg larz a

fo ur th c ontin ua nc e on the g ro un d th at he fa ile d to e sta bli sh elig ibilit y for grandf

ather ing. Thoug h this threshold failure pr ovides ade quate grounds upon which to dismiss the petition, we furthe r note that the B IA, in Matter of Rajah , a lso state d th at “ c ontin ua nc e s sh ou ld not ordinarily

be g rante d based solely

on a pendinglabor c ertification.” 24 I . & N . Dec . at 137.5

In this case, howe ver, Weg larz’s counsel infor med the I J that she had not yet filed for a labor
cer tification, so there was not eve n any pendinglabor c ertification for the I J to consider. Wegla rz’s labor status was, thus, squar ely within the rea lm of the speculative. Under the circ umstances, we cannot f ind any abuse of discretion in the I J ’s denial of the continuanc e. We h ave c on sid e re d p e tit ion e r’ s r e ma ini ngargume nts and fi nd the m to be wi tho ut m e ri t. F o r th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e p e t i t i o nf o r r e v i e wi s h e r e b y DE NI ED
. FOR THE COURT: CA TH ERI

NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK By :________________________________