At oral argument, we asked the parties to brief whether this case is moot b ecau se Wu 1 has been returned to China. Both parties re spondedth at the case is not moot. We agree. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60073

HI NG C HUEN WU, a l s o k n o wn a s HI NG C HEUN W U, a l s o k n o wn a s HUANG CHE UNG WU, a l s o k n o wn a s HI NG C W U, a l s o k n o wn a s HI NG WU P et i t i on er v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R. , U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L R esp on d en t

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of

t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s
B ef ore JO L L Y , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg e: T h e sol e qu est i on i n t h i s pet i t i on f or r ev iew o f a B oard of I m m i grati on A p p e a ls (“B IA ”) d e c is io n is w h e t h e rt h e Im m ig r a tio n J u d g e (“I J ”) a b u s e dh is di s c r e t i o n by de nyi ng Pet i t i o ne r H i ng Chuen W u’ s ( “W u” ) m o t i o n f o r a t h i rd conti n u an ce pend i n g t h e adj u di cat i on of h i s w i fe’ s I

- 130 vi sa petit i on . W u reli es 1 pr i m ar i l y o n Ma tter of G a rc ia , 1 6 I
. & N
. D e c . 6 53 ( BI A 197 8) , t o a r guet hatt he I J e r r e d i n de nyi ng hi m ac o nt i nuan c e . I n G a rc ia , t he B IA d eterm i n ed t hat “d is c r e tio n s h o u ld , a s ag e n e r a l ru le , b e fa v o r a b lye x e r c is e dw h e r e ap r im a fa c ie United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 11, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60073

2 ap pr o va bl e v i s a pe t i t i o n and adj us t m e ntappli c at i o n ha ve b e e n s ubm i t t e d i n t he
c our se of a depor t at i on hear i ng or upon a m ot i on t o r eo pen. ” I d. at 657. H o w e v e r , a n IJ w o u ldn o t a b u s e h is d is c r e tio n to d e n yaco n tin u a n c e “u p o n h is de t e r m i nat i o n t hatt he v i s a pe t i t i o n is f r ivo l o us o rt hatt he a dj us t m e nt ap pl i cat i on w ou l d be den i ed on st atutor y groun ds or i n t h e exerci se of di scr et i on n otw i th stan d i n g th e a p p rov a lof th e p eti ti on . ” I d. Se ve r alc i r c ui t s ha ve r ul e d t hat , b as e d o n G a rc ia , an IJ abu ses h i s or her di s c r e t i o n by de nyi ng a m o t i o n t o c o nt i nue s o l e l y ba s e d o n c o nc e r ns of t i m i ng w h en a non f

rivol ou s pri m a faci e app rovable I- 130 petit i on i s pen di n g. For
e xa m pl e , i n Hash m iv. A t t orney G eneralo f t h e Un i t ed S t ate s— w h i ch en t ai l ed vir t uall y t he ex ac ts am e fac t s a s he r e — t he Thi r d Ci r c ui tr e c e nt l y r ul e d t hat“t he IJ abu sed h i s di scr et i on w h en h e den i ed H ash m i ’ s m ot i on f or a c on t i n u an ce b a s e ds o le lyo n c o n c e r n s a b o u tt h e a m o u n to f t im e r e q u ir e dto r e s o lv e H a s h m i’s
c a s e .” 5 3 1 F .3 d2 5 6 , 2 6 0 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 8 ); s e ea ls o Ha s s a n v . I NS , 110 F. 3d 490, 4 9 2 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (“S ig n ific a n tly , a n a lie n is g e n e r a llye n tit le dto th e fa v o r a b le
e xe r c i s e o f

a n I J’ s di s cret i o n r e ga r di ng a r e que s tf o rac o nt i nuan c e w he r e t he D i st ri ctD i rect or has n otyetadj u di cat ed a pri m a faci e app rovable vi sa petit i on a n da dju s tm e n t o f s ta t u s a p p l i c a t io n .”); Bu l lv . I NS , 79 0 F
. 2 d86 9 , 87 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 198 6) ( st ati n g t h at “t h e factt h at t h e petit i on f or an i m m i gran tvi sa ha d n ot ye tb e e n a ppr o ve d a tt he t i m e t hatBul lr e que s t e d a c o nt i nuan c e w as not , i n a nd
o f its e lf, su ffic ie n t r e a s o n to d e n yth e co n tin u a n c e ”); cf. D elR osari o v. Mu ka sey , 295 F. A pp’ x 180, 181 ( 9t h C i r . 2008) (favor abl y c i t i ng G ar c i a f or t h e proposi t i on t h at “t h e B IAshallgen eral l y gran ta m ot i on t o reopen based on a spou salvi sa pe t i t i o n wher e a pr i m a fac i e ap pr o va bl e vi s a pe t i t i o n a nd a dj us t m e nto f s t at us ap pl i c at i o n ha ve b e e n s ubm i t t e d, unl e s s c l e ari ne l i gibi l i t y i s a ppa r e nti n t he
r e c o r d ”); Pedreros v. K ei sler , 5 03 F
. 3d 1 62, 1 65 ( 2d C i r. 2 007 ) (“ Iti s a m att er of lon g-stan d i n g an d ex p ress B IA p oli cy th a t, a s a ge n era l m a tter, a n a l ie n is
e n tit le dto aco n tin u a n c e o f r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s t h im w h ile a‘ p r im a fa c ieN o. 08- 60073

At oral argument, the parties advised us that Wu’ s wife’s I-1 30 petition was approved 2 duringthe pendency of this appeal
. 3 ap prova bl e’I

- 130 im m i gran tvi sa petit i on i s pen di n g i n f ront of t h e D i st ri ct D ire cto r.”). T h e G overnm en tasser t s t h at t h e I J vali dl y den i ed th e m o t i on f or c o nt i nuan c e i n t hi s c as e be c aus e W u di d no t s ubm i t any e vi de nc e t hathe ha d a b o n a fid e m a r r ia g e to aU .S . cit iz e n . T h e r e fo r e , t h e G o v e r n m e n t c o n te n d s , W u fai l ed t o m ee thi s burde n of s how i ng a pe nd i n g p ri m a fac i e a ppro vabl e I

- 130 ap pl i cat i on . B u tt h e I J’ s or aldeci si on does not r estup on an y docu m en t ary fai l ure r egar di ng W u’ s pro of of hi s bona f

i de m ar r i age. I nst ead, t he I J r ul ed t hat

“ [ a] s of t oda y’ s date, coun self or [W u ] i n f

orm ed the C ou rtt h at th e app l i cat i on w as st i l lpen di n g ap prova l . N o concret e evi den ce w as presented t o t h e C ou rt
w hi c h woul d i ndi c at e t hata ppr o va lo f t he pe t i t i o n was i m m i ne nt
. ” The I J and t h e B IAdi d n ot cha l l en ge t h at W u w as m arri ed t o a U
. S
. ci t i zen, n or di d ei t h er que s t i o n t he m e r i t s o f t he I

- 13 0 pe t i t i o n. Thus , i ta ppe ar s t hatt he I J de ni e d t he
c o nt i nuan c e s o l e l y ba s e d o n c o nc e r ns r e ga r di ng t he l e ngt h o f t i m e i tw as t ak i ng t o process t h e I- 130 peti t i on . U n der G ar c i a an d the m an y ci rcui tcourtcases c o ns t r ui ng t h at deci si o n, t he I J ab us e d hi s di s c r e t i o n i n r e l yi ng upo n t he de l ay— w hi c h s e e m i ngly w as no t e ve n W u’ s fault

— as t he s o l e r e as o n f o rde nyi ng t h e m ot i on f

or c on t i n u an ce. U po n r e m andf

r o m t he Thi r d Ci r c ui ti n Ha s h mi , t he B IAr ec ogni ze d t hat
an I J can n otrely sol el y on t i m i n g concerns an d p rovi ded i t s f i rstdetai l ed g u i d a n c e o f

h o w a n I J s h o u l da n a l y z e amo t i o n f o rc o n t i n u a n c e w h e n ap r i ma fa c ie a p p r o v a b l e I

- 1 3 0 p e tit io n is p e n d in g . I n r eHa s h mi , 24 I
. & N
. D ec . 785 ( B IA2009)
. The B IAs t at ed t hatt he IJ s h ou l d eval uat e t he f ol l ow i ng f

ive fa c to r s : ( 1) t he D H S’ s po s i t i o n o n t he m o t i on to co nt i nue ; ( 2) w he t he rt he unde r l yi ng vi s a peti t i o n i s pr i m a fac i e a ppr o va bl e [ ] ; ( 3) t he 2N o. 08- 60073

4 respond en t ’ s s t atutor y el i gibi l i t y f or adj u st m en tof

st atus; ( 4) w h et h er t h e res pon den t ’ s ap pl i cat i on f or adj u st m en tm eri t s a fav o r ab l e e xe r c i s e o f di scr et i on; a nd ( 5) t he r e as o n f o rt he conti n u an ce and an y ot h er r el evan tprocedu ralfact ors. I d. T h e B IA provi ded a detai l ed exp l an ati on of each of t h e f ive fact ors an d n ot ed th a t t h e IJ a ls o m a yco n s id e ro th e rfa c ts a s a p p r o p r ia te
. I d. at 790- 94. A t i ts core, “ t h e f

ocus of t h e i n qu i ry i s t h e app aren tul t i m ate li kelih ood of success on th e a dj u stm en t ap p l i ca ti on . ” I d. a t 7 9 0
. G ive n th a t th e B IAf ou n di t pru d en t t o r e m andt he c as e t o t he I J f o rt he i ni t i alc o ns i de r at i o n o f t he s e fac t o r s i n Ha s h mi , i d. at794, w e t ake t he s am e a p p r oac h her e. The I J s houl d have t he i ni t i al
o ppo r t uni t y t o i m pl e m e ntt he ne w fac t o r s t hatt he BI A r e c e nt ly pr o m ul ga t e d. A c c o r d in g ly , w e h o ld th a tth e I J a b u s e dh is d is c r e t io n b yd e n y in gW u ’s
m o t i o n f

o rconti n uanc e s o l e l y ba s e d o n t he l e ngt h o f t he de l ayi n o bt ai ni ng a p p r o v a l o f h is w ife ’ s I-1 3 0 a p p lic a tio n . F o llo w in gth e B IA ’ s re c e n t g u id a n c e in Ha s h mi , w e rem an d to th e B IAf or t h e B IAt o rem an d to t h e I J f or a consi derati on of

t h e Ha sh m i fact ors. P ET I T I ON G RA NT ED ; VAC AT ED A ND R EMANDE D.