2006 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
5-22-2006 

# K h an 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 . 04-4336

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_2006

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 2006 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

" K h an v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 995. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/995P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 4336

M OHAMM E D NAS I R K HAN, Pet i t i oner

v. *AT TO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent *Pur s uantt o F. R
. A
. P. 43( c)

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A 79 708 104) I m m i gr at i on J udge: D ani el A
. M ei s ner
A r gued D ece m ber15, 2005 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , S M IT H , a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N ,

C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed M ay22, 2006) J eff r eyC
. B l oom Fl us hi ng, N Y 11354 Fr ancoi s - I horM azur( A r gued) Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 03 A tt o rne y s fo r P eti ti o n erT he s peci al regi s tr at i on pr ogr am, w hi ch D H S enl ar ged 1 p o st-9 /1 1 , req u ire s n o n -c iti z e n s f ro m sp e c if

ied c o u n tries to r e g i s t e rwi th th e Na t i o n a l S e c u r i tyEn try - Ex i tRe g i s tr a t i o n S y s t e m. See A l i v. G onzal es , 440 F. 3d 678, 679 ( 5th C ir
. 2006) ( per cu ri am ); M u rtu za v . G o n za les, 4 2 7 F
. 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 0 9 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); 2 M i chae l P. L i ndemann D ougl as E
. G i ns bur g ( A r gued) 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 W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 A t t orney s forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i onerM ohamm ed N as i rK han s eeks r evi ew of the deci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the d ec isi o n o f th e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) w h o d en ied K h an ’s requestfor a con t i nu ance o f his rem ov al proceed i ng . W e m ust deci de atthe out s etw hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on. I . Backg r ound K han i s a forty - s even- y ear - ol d nat i ve and c i t i zen of B angl ades h. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a non- i m m i gr ant b u sin e ss v isito r o n S e p tem b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 6 , w ith p e rm iss io n to r emai n fora per i od nott o exce ed one mont h. O n M ar ch 25, 2003, K han vol unt ar i l yr eport ed t o the off i ces of the D epart m ent o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity(“ D H S ” ) to re g iste r in c o m p lian c e w ith D H S ’s “ sp e c ial re g istra tio n ” p ro g ra m . D H S p lac e d K h a n in to 1R egi s tr at i on and M oni tori ng of C ert ai n N oni m m i gr ant s , 67 Fed. R eg . 5 2 , 5 8 4 (A u g . 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 ); 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 6 4
. 1 (f) (20 0 2 ). E m pl oym ent - bas ed perm anentr es i dency (a “gr een c ar d”) 2 is av ail ab le t o ali en s thro u g h a th ree -st ep p roc ess. F ir st, the a li en ’s pr os pect i ve empl oy erm us tfi l e an appl i cat i on for Labor C ert i fi cat i on ( For m E T A
- 750) w i th the D O L , w hi ch r efe r s the pet i t i on t o the appr opr i at e s t at e- l evel author i ty , s uch as the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof Labor
. I f the appl i cat i on s at i s fi es ce rt ain re q u ir em en ts ( e.g., su ff ici en t U n it ed S tates w o rke rs are unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o per form the j ob i n ques t i on) , the s t at e l abor o f f ice a n d , the re a f

ter , the D O L w il l “ c e rtify” th e lab o r re q u e st. Second, th e ali en’s pr os pect i ve empl oy erm us tfi l e w i th D H S t he appr oved LaborC ert i fi cat i on al ong w i th a V i s a Pet i t i on for P rosp ec ti v e Im m igran t E m p loy ee (F o rm I-14 0 ): A V i s a Pet i t i on cons t i tut es a r eques tt o [D H S] that the al i en n a m e d in th e L a b o r C e rtific a tio n b e c las sif ied a s elig ib le to appl yfordes i gnat i on w ithi n a s peci fi ed vi s a pr efe r ence empl oym entcat egory . I f [D H S] appr oves the V i s a Pet i t i on a n d c las sif

ie s th e c e rtifie d a lien a s s o e lig ib le, th e a lien is as s i gned an i m m i gr antvi s a numberbythe D epart m en tof St at e. 3 r emoval pr ocee di ngs thats ame daybys ervi ng hi m w i th a N ot i ce t o Ap p e a ri n wh i c h i tc h a r g e d h i m w i th r e mo v a b i l i tyu n d e rI NA § 2 3 7 (a )( 1 )( B ) f

o r o v e rs ta y in g h is v is a . O n O ct ober2, 2003, K han appe ar ed pr o s e fora hea r i ng b e f o re a n IJ w h o a d

jo u rn e d th e p ro c e e d in g so th a t K h a n c o u ld s eek c ouns el
. O n N ovember20, 2003, K han aga i n appea r ed b e f o re th e IJ, th is tim e w ith c o u n se l. K h a n c o n c e d e d h is r emovabi l i tyas char ged and di d notappl yforas y l um orother su b stan ti v e re li ef
. Instea d , h e a p p li ed fo r vo lun taryd ep arture and s ubm i t t ed a w r i t t en mot i on s eeki ng a cont i nuance of the r emoval pr ocee di ng or , i n the al t ernat i ve, a t erm i nat i on of the pr ocee di ng on the gr ound thathi s w i fe ( al s o an al i en fr om B angl ades h) had a pe ndi ng appl i cat i on foran A l i en Em pl oym ent C ert i fi cat i on ( “LaborC ert i fi cat i on”) w i th the U ni t ed St at es D ep artm en t of

L ab o r (“D O L ”). 2U ni t ed St at es v. R y an- W ebs t er , 353 F. 3d 353, 356 ( 4th C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng 8 U
. S. C
. § 1153( b) )
. T hi r d, and fi nal l y , aft erthe al i en re c e iv e s a v isa n u m b e r u n d e r F o rm I-1 4 0 , a n d if th e a lien p re se n tly r es i des i n t he U ni t ed St at es ( as does K h an’ s w i fe) , then the al i en m u st f il e w ith D H S an A p p li ca ti o n to A d just S tatu s (F o rm I-48 5 ). D H S t hen cons i der s For m s I
- 140 and I- 485 t o det erm i ne w hether t o adj us tthe al i en’ s s t atus t o l aw ful perm anentr es i dent
. Such adjustm ent perm i t s the ali en to l i ve an d w ork i n the U nit ed S t at es. If th e a lien is g ra n ted law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t sta tu s, D H S w ill i s s ue a “ gr een c ar d” t o the al i en. T h e L IF E A c t en a b led c e rta in a lien s u n law f u llyp re se n t in 3 th e U n ited S tate s to p a y a n a p p lica tio n f e e a n d re m a in h e re w h ile s e e k in g to a d

ju s t th e irs ta t u s b a s e d o n e m p lo ym e n t. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 (i )( 1 ). 4 K h a n a n d h is w if

e , R e h a n a B e g u m , w e re m a rrie d in B angl ades h i n 1982; theyhave a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen mi nor c h ild . O n A p ril 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 , a p ro sp e c tiv e e m p lo y e r in P e n n sy lv a n ia f

iled a L a b o r C e rtific a tio n f o r p e rm iss io n to e m p lo yB e g u m a s a “ H o u s e h o ld C o o k ” a t a p ri v a te re s id e n c e . K han’ s w i fe t i m el yappl i ed forthe LaborC ert i fi cat i on under I N A § 245( i ) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1255( i ) ( “LIFE A ct ”) , w hi ch had a s uns etdat e of A pr i l 30, 2001. A s r el evantt o the i ns t antcas e, 3 the L IF E A ct pro v ides that a leg al pe rm an en t r esid en t al ien’s s pous e and mi norchi l dr en ar e el i gi bl e, byvi r tue of thei rr el at i on t o the al i en, t o ap plyfor adjustm ent of st atus i f otherw i se q u ali fied
. S ee 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 5 (i )(1)(B ); 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 5 3 (d). A tthe N ovember20, 2003 hear i ng, K han’ s couns el re p re se n ted to th e IJ th a t it“ u su a llytak e s a b o u t 4 5 d a y s to g e t a r es pons e fr om the r egi onal ” on an appl i cat i on fora Labor C ert i fi cat i on. A pp. at49. T he I J deni ed the r eques t ed cont i nuance , r eas oni ng thatB egum’s appl i cat i on fora Labor C ert i fi cat i on w as m er el ypendi ng, no vi s a pet i t i on had y etbeen fi l ed, and therefore K han w as not pr i m a facie el i gibl e t o ad j ust h is s tatu s. T h e IJ a lso d e n ied K h a n ’s a ltern a tiv e re q u e st to term inate the rem o v al pro ce ed ing s alt o g ethe r, rejecti n g K h an ’s s ugges t i on thatt erm i nat i on w as w arr ant ed bec aus e D H S had5 fai l ed t o fol l ow i t s ow n r egul at i ons i n r equi r i ng K han t o r egi s t er underthe s peci al r egi s tr at i on pr ogr am. T he I J not ed thatK han, thr ough couns el , had conc eded hi s r emovabi l i tyas char ged and decl i ned t o rul e on K han’ s due pr oces s chal l enge t o the re g istra tio n p ro g ra m . T h e IJ o rd e re d K h a n ’s r e m o v a l to B an g lade sh b u t gran ted h im a six ty -da yw ind o w to d ep art v o l u n t a r i l y. K han t i m el yapp eal ed to the B IA , rai si ng tw o argum ents : ( 1 ) th e s p e c i a l r e g i s tr a t i o n p r o c e d u r e “ i s r e p u g n a n tt o th e US c o n stitu tio n ;” a n d (2 ) th e IJ e rre d in re f u sin g to g ra n t a cont i nuance on t he gr ound thatB egum’s appl i cat i on fora Labor C erti fica ti o n w as p en d ing
. A p p . at 5. K h an n o ted th at B eg u m ’s L aborC ert i fi cat i on al r eadyhad bee n appr oved atthe s t at e l evel and w as pendi ng onl ybefor e the fe der al R egi onal O ffi ce of the D O L
. K han ar gued thathe s houl d notbe fa ul t ed forthe g o v e r n me n t ’ s d e l a yi n p r o c e s s i n g L a b o rCe r t i f i c a t i o n s . On O ct ober27, 2004, the B I A s um m ar i l yaff i r m ed the I J ’ s or der w ith o u t op inion an d p erm itted K h an thirtyd ay s to d ep art v o l u n t a r i l y. K han t i m el yfi l ed thi s pet i t i on forr evi ew . T he G o v e rn m e n t f

iled a m o tio n to d ism iss o n th e g ro u n d th a t th is co u rtlack s jurisdicti o n an d , alt ern ati v ely , fo r sum m ary aff i r m ance . II. A s w e not ed above , thi s cas e pr es ent s atthe thr es hol d the ques t i on w hetherthi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on overthe pet i t i on for r evi ew . T he B I A i s s ued a f i nal or ders um m ar i l yaff i r m i ng the IJ’s rem o v al ord er, w h ich th e IJ e n tered af ter de n y ing K h an ’s m ot i on fora cont i nuance . T hus , the B I A or derfal l s w i thi n our ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a “ f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l,” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). T he G overnm entar gues w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the I J ’ s deni al of K han’ s r eques tfora cont i nuance beca us e s uch d e n ial c o n stitu tes a “ d isc re tio n a ryd e ter m in a tio n .” M o tio n to Di s mi s s a t4
. T h e Go v e rn me n tr e l i e s u p o n th e l a n g u a g e o f I NA6 § 242( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , w hi ch pr ovi des in p e rtin e n t p a rt: N o tw ith stan d ing an yo ther p rov isi o n o f law
. . . , n o co u rt s hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew . . . anyotherdeci s i on or act i on of the A t t orneyG ener al
. . . the author i tyforw hi ch i s s peci fi ed underthi s s ubchapt ert o be i n the di s cr et i on of the A t t orneyG ener al
. . . , otherthan the gr ant i ng of [as y l um ] r el i ef unde rs ect i on 1158( a) of thi s t i t l e. Id . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). As th e Go v e r n me n ts u g g e s t s , th e q u e s t i o n wh e th e rwe h av e jurisdicti o n in the p rese n t case turn s o n w h ethe r th e IJ’s author i tyt o gr antK han a c ont i nuance of the r emoval pr ocee di ng i s “s peci fi ed underthi s s ubchapt er , ” and ther efor e pr ecl uded fr om r evi ew . I d. W e have pr evi ous l yexpl ai ned that , “[t ] he lan g u a g e ‘th is s u b c h a p ter ’ in th e f o re g o in g p ro v isio n re f

e rs to Subchapt erI I i n C hapt er12 of Ti t l e 8 of the U ni t ed St at es C o d e ,” w h ic h c o n s is ts o f 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 1 -1 3 7 8 (“ S u b c h a p te r” ). U ren a-T av are z v . A sh cro ft 3 6 7 F
. 3 d 1 5 4 , 1 5 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). T her e i s no s t atut orypr ovi s i on w i thi n the Subchapt erthat expl i ci t l yconfe r s di s cr et i on on an I J t o gr anta cont i nuance . T he o n lyp ro v isio n in th e S u b c h a p ter w h ich m ig h t b e c o n stru e d to c o n f e r su c h d isc re tio n is 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (a ), w h ich g ra n ts author i tyt o “[a ] n i m m i gr at i on j udge [t o] conductpr ocee di ngs fordeci di ng the i nadmi s s i bi l i tyordeport abi l i tyof an a l i en. ” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 9 a(a )(1). A rgu ab ly , a tri b u n al au tho ri ze d to h ea r a m att erhas i nher entauthor i tyt o cont i nue the hea r i ng t o another ti m e. In a n yev en t, a f

ed era l r eg u lat ion ex p li cit lyco n fe rs di s cr et i on upon t he I J t o gr anta cont i nuance : “The I m m i gr at i on Judg e m aygranta m oti on for con t i nu ance f or goo d cau se s h o w n .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 9 (2 0 0 6 ). Si gni fi cantforpr es entpurpos es i s the i s s ue w hetherthe IJ ’s d e c is io n o n s u c h a m o tio n c a n b e re v ie w e d b yth is c o u rt
. T he C our t s of A ppeal s ar e di vi ded on the ques t i on w hetheran expr es s gr antof di s cr et i onaryauthor i tyi n a fe der al r egul at i on im p lem e n ted p u rsu a n t to th e S u b c h a p ter a m o u n ts to a u th o rity7 “s peci fi ed underthi s s ubchapt er . ” W e lo o k f

irst to w h e th e r th is c o u rt h a s s p o k e n o n th is i s s u e . I n Ba k h tr i g e rv . E l wo o d , 3 6 0 F
. 3 d 4 1 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , we engage d i n an ext ens i ve exa m i nat i on of the author i tyof the C our t s of A ppeal s t o r evi ew di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons i n as y l um c a s e s p r i o rt o e n a c t m e n to f th e R E A L I D A c to f

2 0 0 5
. We e x a m in e d th e “ k in d s o f c h a llen g e s [ th a t] a re c o g n iza b le in cr i m i nal al i en r emoval habea s pet i t i ons , ” i d. at420, and concl uded that28 U
. S. C
. § 2241 habea s r evi ew does not i ncorpor at e an e xami nat i on of the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on but “m u st be co n fin ed to q u esti o n s o f c o n sti tuti o n al an d statu tory l aw . ” I d. at424. T hatdeci s i on i s i nappl i cabl e her e bec aus e the p rese n t case d o es n o t i n v o lve a “c ri m inal ali en ” a n d there fo re o u r rev iew is no t r estri cted to “c o n sti tuti o n al ch all en g es o r errors o f law .” Id . at 4 2 5 . In B a k h trig e r, w e d id n o t h a v e o c c a sio n to c o n sid e r th e a p p lica b ili tyo f th e “ sp e c if

ied u n d e r th is su b ch ap ter” lan g u ag e o f 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i i)
. T her eaf t er , w e di d cons i derthi s l anguage i n Sol t ane v. U
. S
. D ep’tof Just i ce, 38 1 F
. 3d 14 3 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). In that cas e the issu e b ef

o re u s w as w h ethe r j u ri sd ict ion to rev iew the IJ’s d en ial o f a p ref

ere n ce v isa t o ce rt ain s p ec ial im m igran ts un d er 8 U
. S. C
. § 1153( b) ( 4) w as barr ed by§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i )
. I d. at 14 6. B ecause the l ang uag e of § 11 53 (b) (4) st at ed thata “vis a ‘ s hal l ’ i s s ue i f [c ert ai n] r equi r ement s ar e met , ” w e coul d “not r ead § 1153( b) ( 4) as havi ng ‘ s peci fi ed’ thatthe gr ant i ng of the vi s as i n ques t i on ‘ be i n the di s cr et i on of the A t t orneyG ener al
. ’ ” Id . a t 1 4 7
. W e a lso c o n sid e re d th e lan g u a g e o f § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(ii) in U re n a -T a v a re z , 3 6 7 F .3 d 1 5 4 . In U re n a -T a v a re z , w e h e ld th a t 8 U
. S. C
. § 1186a( c) ( 4) , w hi ch governs the gr antof condi t i onal perm anentr es i dents t atus bas ed on mar r i age t o a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, byi t s t erm s expl i ci t l yas s i gns di s cr et i on t o the A t t orney G ener al and ther efor e § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) pr ecl uded r evi ew by thi s courtof the deni al of a w ai verunder§ 1186a( c) ( 4)
. I d. at 161. T he onl yot herpr ece dent i al opi ni on i n w hi ch w e haveI n Subhan v. A s hcr oft , 383 F. 3d 591 ( 7th C ir
. 2 0 04) , the 4 S e v e n th C irc u it ad d re ss e d th is ju risd ictio n a l iss u e , b u t o n lyin 8 c o n sid e re d § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(ii) is o u r re c e n t d e c isio n in Jilin Phar m ace ut i cal U SA , I nc. v. C hert off, N o. 05- 2788, __ F. 3d __ ( 3d C i r . M ay10, 2006)
. I n J i l i n, w e hel d that8 U
. S. C
. § 1155 e x p licitlyp ro v id e s th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l w ith d isc re tio n to r evoke the pr i orappr oval of a vi s a pet i t i on and ther efor e s uch re v o c a tio n is s h ie ld e d f ro m c o u rt re v ie w p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i )
. J i l i n, Sl i p O p. at8- 21, 24. I n none of the ca s es r efe rr ed t o above, Sol t ane, U re n a -T a v a re z , an d Jilin , d id w e a d d re ss th e iss u e b e f o re th is c o u rt in th e in sta n t ca se
– n a m e ly , w h e th e r § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(ii) bar s j ur i s di ct i on w hen ther e i s no s t atut e expr es s l ygr ant i ng d isc re tio n to th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l b u t d isc re tio n a rya u th o rityis ex tant u n d er a fe d era l r eg u lat ion
. A cc o rdin g ly , the issu e b ef o re u s is o n e o f

f irst im p re ss io n f

o r th is c o u rt. T he Ei ghth and Tent h C i r cui tC our t s of A ppeal s have in terp re ted § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(ii) to m e a n th a t a C o u rt o f A p p e a ls has no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the deni al of a pe t i t i oner ’ s m ot i on fora cont i nuance of a r emoval pr ocee di ng. Y erkovi ch v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d 990, 995 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ; O ny i nkw a v. A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F
. 3 d 7 9 7 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). In Y erk o v ich, th e c o u rt fel ti t s el f bound byi t s ear l i erdeci s i on i n V an D i nh v. R eno, 197 F. 3d 427, 433 ( 10th C i r . 1999) , w hi ch had br oadl ycons trued the p re c lu s iv e e f

f e c t o f § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( B )( ii) . S e e 9 9 0 F .3 d a t 9 9 4
. B oth Y erkovi ch and O ny i nkw a bas ed thei rdeci s i ons thatr evi ew of the deni al of a mot i on fora cont i nuance i s barr ed on the g rou n d that 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 9 , w h ich im p lem en ts an IJ’s s t atut oryauthor i tyunder§ 1229a( a) ( 1) t o “conduc t p ro c e e d in g s,” c o n f

e rs d isc re tio n u p o n th e IJ to g ra n t a cont i nuance . T her efor e, theyr eas oned, “‘ the pl ai n m eani ng of § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ’ s t ext ’ bar [r i ng] court s fr om r evi ew i ng r el i ef ‘spe cified u n d er this su b ch ap ter’” en co m p asse s o rde rs of the IJ deny i ng cont i nuance s . Y erkovi ch, 381 F. 3d at994 ( quot i ng S am ir ah v . O ’C o n n ell , 3 3 5 F
. 3 d 5 4 5 , 5 4 9 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 )); acc or d O ny i nkw a, 376 F. 3d at799. 4d icta . T h e S u b h a n c o u rt “ “ [ s ] u p p o s[ e d ,] . . . w ith o u t h a v in g to d ec ide, th at sec t i on 1252( a) ( 2)(B )(i i) g e n e ra lly bar s j udi ci al r evi ew of a c ont i nuance gr ant ed byan i m m i gr at i on j udge i n a r emov al p ro c e e d in g .” Id . a t 5 9 5
. 9 C our t s thathave he l d t o the contr aryhave rul ed that di s cr et i onaryauthor i tyt o gr anta cont i nuance cannotbe cons i der ed “s peci fi ed underthi s s ubchapt er ” w her e the l anguage thatexpr es s l ypr ovi des fors uch author i tyappea r s onl yi n a r e g u l a t i o n . S e e A h m e d v . G o n z a l e s , N o . 0 5
- 6 0 0 3 2 , 2 0 0 6 WL 1064196, at*3 ( 5th C i r . A pr . 24, 2006) ; Sanus i v. G onzal es , N o. 0 1 -40 4 7 -ag , 2 0 0 6 U
. S
. A p p . L E X IS 9 6 4 0 , at *1 0 -*1 4 (2d C ir
. A pr . 18, 2006) ( percur i am); Z afa rv. U
. S. A t t ’ yG en. , 426 F. 3d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 5 (11 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). A s the co u rtstat ed in Z af ar, “B eca us e deni al s of m ot i ons t o cont i nue ar e not sta tu to rily -p ro sc rib e d d isc re tio n a rya c ts ‘s p e c if ied u n d e r th is s ub[cha pt er ] ’ t o t he A t t orneyG ener al , as enumer at ed i n § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew them. ” 426 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 5 ; ac c o rd A h m e d , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 0 6 4 1 9 6 , at * 3 ; S a n u si, 2006 U
. S. A pp. L E X I S 9640, at*10- *14; s ee a l s o A bu- K hal i el v. G onzal es , 436 F. 3d 627 ( 6th C i r . 2006) ( agr eei ng w i th the re s u lt, b u t n o t th e re a s o n in g , o f Z a f a r)
. T h e C o u rts o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e F if

th a n d N in th C irc u its have a dopt ed s i m i l arr eas oni ng i n concl udi ng thatthe l anguage of § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) does notbarr evi ew of the deni al of a m o tio n to re o p e n re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s, a p ro c e e d in g c o m p a ra b le to a m o ti o n to co n ti n u e in its i n v o ca ti o n o f th e IJ’s d iscreti o n . In Z hao v. G onzal es , 404 F. 3d 295 ( 5th C i r . 2005) , the courts t at ed,

O ne mi ghtm i s t akenl yr ead § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) as str ipp ing u s o f th e a u tho ri tyto rev iew an yd iscreti o n ary im m ig ra tio n d e c isio n . T h a t re a d in g , h o w e v e r, is i ncorr ect , beca us e § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) s tr i ps us onl yof j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w d i s c r e t i o n a ry a u th o r i ty sp e c ifi e d in th e sta tu te . T h e sta tu to rylan g u a g e is u n c h a ra c ter istica lly p e llu c id o n th is s c o re ; itd o e s n o t allu d e g e n e ra llyto
“ d isc re tio n a rya u th o rity ” o r to “ d isc re tio n a rya u th o rity10 exer ci s ed u n d e r th is s ta tu te ,” b u t sp e c if ica llyto “authori tyfor w hich i s s peci f i ed underthis s ubchapt erto b e in th e d is c re tio n o f

th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l.” Id. at30 3 (quo t i ng § 1 25 2(a) (2) (B )( i i )) ; see al so M edi na- M or al es v. A s hcr oft , 371 F. 3d 520, 528 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( “B eca us e 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( c) nei thergr ant s norl i m i t s the A t t orneyG ener al ’ s di s cr et i on t o denym ot i ons t o r eopen, [i t ] can perhaps be s ai d t o have l efts uch author i tyt o the A t t orney G ener al bydefa ul t
. B utdefa ul tauthor i tydoes notcons t i tut e the s peci f i cat i on re q u ir e d b y§ 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( B )( ii) .” ). In it s rec en t op inion in S an u si, 2 0 0 6 U
. S
. A p p . L E X IS 9640, the Second Ci r cui tr evi ew ed the conf l i ct i ng opi ni ons and w ei ghed i n on the s i de of thos e court s thathol d the C our t s of A ppeal s have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on a cl ai m thatan I J w r ongl ydeni ed a mot i on fora cont i nuance i n an i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ng. I d. at*11- *14. T he courts ur vey ed the sta tu to rylan d sc a p e a n d n o ted its a g re e m e n t w ith th o se c irc u its thathave he l d “thatthe dec i s i on byan I J orthe B I A t o gr antor t o d enya con t i nu ance in an im m i grat i on proceed i ng i s nota deci s i on ‘ s peci fi ed under[the r el evant ] s ubchapt ert o be i n the d isc re tio n o f

th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l.’” Id . at * 1 3 (a ltera tio n in or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; acc or d A hm ed, 2006 W L 1064196, at*3. T he courtthen s t at ed: A lth o u g h th e p re sid in g o f f ice r a t a h e a rin g tra d iti o n a lly has di s cr et i on t o gr antort o denycont i nuance s r eques t ed bythe part i es appea r i ng befor e hi m , w e ca nnotconcl ude th a t th e d e c isio n to g ra n t o r to d e n ya c o n tin u a n c e in i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs i s “s peci fi ed under[the r el evant ] s ubchapt ert o be i n the di s cr et i on of the A t t orneyG ener al
. ” I ndeed, cont i nuance s ar e noteven m e n tio n e d in th e su b c h a p ter . W e th e re f o re h o ld th a t 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) does notdepr i ve us of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew deci s i ons byI J s t o gr antort o deny cont i nuance s , w hi ch ac cor ds w i th ourgener al p re s u m p tio n in f

a v o r o f ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . S e e IN S v . S t. C yr , 533 U
. S. 289, 298, 121 S. C t
. 2271, 150 L
. E d. 2d 347 ( 2001) ( s t at i ng thatdes pi t e s peci fi c j ur i s di ct i on-11 d e n y in g p ro v isio n s, in im m ig ra tio n c a se s th e re still ex ists a “s tr ong pr es um pt i on i n favorof j udi ci al r evi ew of ad m inistrati v e a cti o n ”). S a n u si, 2 0 0 6 U .S . A p p . L E X IS 9 6 4 0 , at * 1 4 (a ltera tio n in o ri g inal) (fo o tno tes o m itted). In o u r v iew , the S e c o n d , F if th , N in th a n d E lev e n th C irc u it C our t s of A ppeal s have a dopt ed the corr ectr eadi ng of § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(ii). A s w e h a v e p re v io u slyo b se rv e d , “[ t]h e k e yto § 125[2] ( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) l i es i n i t s r equi r ementthatthe di s cr et i on g iv in g ri s e to th e ju ri s d ic tio n a l b a r m u s t b e ‘s p e c if ie d ’ b ys ta tu te
. In ot her w ords, ‘the langu age o f t he st atute i n q uest i on m ust pr ovi de the di s cr et i onaryauthor i ty ’ befor e the barcan ha ve any effect. ” S olt ane, 381 F
. 3d at14 6 (quo t i ng S pen cer En t erpr i ses, In c . v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 4 5 F .3 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 9 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ))
. In d e e d , “ to s p e c if

y ” m e a n s “ [ t] o s ta te e x p lic itly o r i n d e ta il,” A m er i can H er i t age Col l ege D i ct i onary1307 ( 3d ed. 1993) , and § 1229a( a) s t at es nothi ng atal l aboutan I J ’ s pow ert o gr antor denya cont i nuance . I n A bu- K hal i el , the Si xth C i r cui tagr eed w i th the E leve n th C ir cu itthat “w e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the IJ’s deni al of a c ont i nuance ” butr eac hed thi s concl us i on thr ough differ ent r easoning. A bu -K hali el , 43 6 F
. 3d at63 3. In contr ast to th e E lev e n th C irc u it, th e S ix th C irc u it i n terp re ted th e p o w e r to “conduc tpr ocee di ngs ” conf err ed by§ 1229a( a) ( 1) t o i ncl ude the pow ert o denya cont i nuance . I d. at634 ( not i ng that“a n e c e ss a ryc o m p o n e n t o f ” th e p o w e r to c o n d u c t p ro c e e d in g s is
“ th e a b i l i ty t o d e c i d e . . . w h e n i ti s a p p r o p r i a t e t o d e l a y a p ro c e e d in g u n til a late r tim e ” ). T h e re f o re , u n lik e th e E lev e n th C i r cui t , the Si xth C i r cui tconcl uded thatthe pow ert o deny c o n tin u a n c e s is in d e e d “ sp e c if ied u n d e r th is s u b c h a p ter ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

§ 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(ii). Id . H o w e v e r, th e S ix th C irc u it ag re e d w ith th e u lti m a te h o ld in g o f th e E lev e n th C irc u it o n the g rou n d that § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i i) “o n lystr ipp ed this co u rt of j ur i s di ct i on fordeci s i ons w i thi n s ubchapt erI I i tl eftt o the di s cr et i on of the A t t orneyG ener al
. ” I d. ( emphasi s added)
. T he A bu K hal i el courthel d thatbeca us e § 1229a( a) ( 1) l eave s di s cr et i on t o t he I J r atherthan the A t t orneyG ener al , “w e haveU nder A bu- K hal i el , i f § 1229a( a) ( 1) had gr ant ed the pow er 5 t o “cond uct proceed i ng s” t o the A t t orneyG eneral rather than t o IJs , the A t t orney G ener al coul d then del egat e that pow er to IJs and therebys tr i p fede r al court s of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the deni al of a cont i nuance under§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i )
. S ee A bu- K hal i el , 436 F. 3 d at634 ( not i ng t hat“w e do notbel i eve thatan I J and the A t t orneyG ener al ar e the s ame w hen the I J i s carry i ng outdut i es confe r r ed bys t atut e as oppos ed t o w hen the I J i s per form i ng dut i es d eleg ated b ythe A tt o rne yG en era l”). 12 ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e IJ ’s d e c is io n to d e n ya c o n tin u a n c e .” I d. 5 A l though w e agr ee w i th the Si xth C i r cui tthatw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew an I J ’ s deni al of a c ont i nuance , w e do not adopti t s concl us i on thatan I J ’ s di s cr et i onarypow ert o gr antor denya cont i nuance i s “s peci fi ed” i n § 1229a( a) ( 1)
. B eca us e the I J ’ s author i tyt o rul e on a c ont i nuance m ot i on i s not“s peci fi ed under[8 U
. S. C
. §§ 1151- 1378] t o be i n the di s cr et i on of the A t t orneyG ener al , ” w e hol d that§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) does not depr i ve thi s courtof j ur i s di ct i on. III . M er it s Be c a u s e th e BI A s u mm a r i l ya f f i r me d wi th o u to p i n i o n , we r evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on. D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc )
. A n I J “maygr anta mot i on forcont i nuance forgood caus e s how n. ” 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 29 ( 2006)
. W e r evi ew the deni al of a c ont i nuance forabus e of di s cr et i on. Ponce- L ei va v. A s hcr oft , 331 F. 3d 369, 377 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. T he I J ’ s deci s i on sh o u ld b e re v e rse d o n lyif it i s a rb itrar y , irratio n a l o r c o n tra ryto l aw . T i pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. I n Ponce- L ei va, w e expl ai ned that“‘ [t ] he ques t i on w hetherdeni al of a c ont i nuance i n an i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ng cons t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on cannotbe dec i ded thr ough the appl i cat i on of br i ght

- l i ne rul es ; i tm us tbe r es ol ved on a c as e by cas e bas i s acc or di ng t o the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of ea chSee s upr a not e 4. 6 13 c a s e . ’ ” Pon c e - Lei va , 33 1 F. 3d a t37 7 ( qu ot i ng Bai r e s v. I N S, 8 5 6 F
. 2 d 8 9 , 9 1 (9th C ir
. 1 9 8 8 )). K han argues that the d enial of h i s conti nu ance requ est amount ed t o an abus e of di s cr et i on and depr i ved hi m of due pr oces s of l aw becaus e i teff ect i vel ydeni ed hi m the bene fi tof s eeki ng t o adj us thi s s t atus underthe LIFE A ct
. K han cont ends thata cont i nuance w as w arr ant ed bec aus e he ha d done everythi ng i n hi s pow ert o compl yw i th the l aw and s houl d not h a v e b e e n f

a u lted f o r th e g o v e rn m e n t’s d e lay i n p ro c e ss in g h is w if e ’s L a b o r C e rt if

ic a tio n . K h an cit es S u b h an v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 3 F
. 3 d 5 9 1 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ), f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t th e IJ a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in r efus i ng t o gr anta cont i nuance . T he courti n Subhan as s um ed, w ith o u t dec iding , that § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i i) “ g e n e ra lly ” b ars j ur i s di ct i on overthe deni al of a mot i on fora cont i nuance . I d. at 595. T he courthel d, how ever , thatthe j ur i s di ct i onal barcannot 6 ext end t o a ca s e i n w hi ch an a l i en s eeks a cont i nuance pendi ng a L a b o r C e rtific a tio n if

th e IJ d e n ies th e c o n tin u a n c e w ith o u t a r eas oned expl anat i on forthe deni al
. I d. I n Subhan, the I J had deni ed the pet i t i oner ’ s thi r d r eques tfora cont i nuance by expl ai ni ng thatal though the pet i t i onereventual l ym i ghthave acqui r ed l aw ful perm anentr es i dence byvi r tue of hi s l abor p e tit io n , h is f

a ilu re to h a v e d o n e so re n d e re d h im “ n o t elig ib le f o r th is f o rm o f re lief a t th is tim e .” Id . at 5 9 3 . T h e S e v e n th C i r cui tr ej ect ed thi s expl anat i on, concl udi ng that“[t ] hi s w as not a re a so n f

o r d e n y in g th e m o tio n f o r a [ ] c o n tin u a n c e , b u t m e re ly a s t at ementof the obvi ous : thatthe l abordepart m ent s hadn’ ty et act ed. ” I d. T he Subhan courtconcl uded thatthe I J ’ s deni al of the cont i nuance w i thouts t at i ng a r eas oned bas i s forthe dec i s i on cons t i tut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on beca us e s uch deni al nul l i fi ed th e ter m s o f

§ 1 2 5 5 (i), w h ich a u th o riz e s th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l to gr antan al i en pr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es an adj us t m entof sta tu s if s/h e “ is e lig ib le to re c e iv e a n im m ig ra n t v isa a n d is a d m iss ib le” a n d “ a n im m ig ra n t v isa is im m e d iate lya v a ilab le to th e a lie n a t th e tim e th e a p p lic a tio n is f ile d .” 8 U .S .C . §I n M att erof G ar ci a, the B I A hel d thatw hi l e “a n al i en does 7 nothave a n abs ol ut e r i ght ” t o a cont i nuance of r emoval p roc ee d ing s, an IJ g en era ll ysh o u ld g ran t suc h a c o n ti n u an ce w h ere a n a lie n h a s s u b m itte d “ a p ri m a f a c ie a p p ro v a b le v i s a p e titio n .” M att erof G ar ci a, 16 I
. & N
. D ec. 653, 656- 57 ( B IA 1978) m o d ifi ed on othergr ounds byI n r e A r thur , 20 I & N D ec. 475 ( B I A 1992)
. H ow ever , the B I A s ugges t ed that , even w h ere an al i en has s ubm i t t ed a vi s a pet i t i on, “[i ] tcl ear l yw o u ld notbe an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n f

o rth e i m m i g r a t i o n j u d g e t o s u m m a r i l y d e n y a requestfor a con t i nu ance . . . up on his determ i nati on that the v i sa pet i t i on i s frivol ous orthatthe A dj us t m entA ppl i cat i on w oul d be deni ed on s t atut ory gr ounds or i n the exer ci s e of di s cr et i on notw i ths t andi ng the appr oval of the pet i t i on. ” I d. at657. 14 1 2 5 5 (i )(2)(A )-( B ). I n t he i ns t antcas e, as i n Subhan, the I J ’ s expl anat i on for r efus i ng K han a c ont i nuance amount ed t o a det erm i nat i on that K han w as “notel i gi bl e forthi s form of r el i ef a tthi s t i m e. ” Subhan, 383 F. 3d at593. T he I J found that“[t ] her e i s no un derl y i ng vis a peti t i on (I -140) fi l ed [in K han ’s nam e] because [hi s w i fe’ s ] l aborcert i fi cat i on i s pendi ng. ” A pp. at36. B as ed o n th is f in d in g , the IJ r u led “ th a t itw o u ld b e in a p p ro p ria te to gr antan . . . adj ournm entof thes e pr ocee di ngs ” bec aus e K han coul d notes t abl i s h pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i tyforadj us t m entof s ta tu s . Id
. W here, as here, an ali en h as fai l ed to subm i ta vis a peti t i on , an IJ’ s deci si on t o d enythe ali en’s conti nu ance requ est i s s quar el yw i thi n t he I J ’ s br oad di s cr et i on, atl eas tabs ent extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s notext anti n the pr es entcas e. See 7 O ny eme v. I N S, 146 F. 3d 227, 234 ( 4th C i r . 1998) ( “B eca us e he had notes t abl i s hed a p rim a fa c ie cas e foran adj us t m entof sta tu s, th e B IA d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e c lin in g to r emand t hi s cas e fora cont i nuance pendi ng r es ol ut i on of the thi r d vi s a pet i t i on fi l ed on O ny eme' s behal f. ”)
. K han ci t es no a u th o rityf

o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t g o v e rn m e n t “d e lay” in pr oces s i ng hi s w i fe’ s L aborC ert i fi cat i on cons t i tut es an extr aor di naryci r cumst ance thatw oul d w arr antan open- ended15 con t i nu ance o f rem ov al proceed i ng s. I ti s undi s put ed thatK han i s pr es ent l yi nel i gi bl e foran i m m i gr antvi s a, w hi ch i s a pr er equi s i t e t o an adj us t m entof s t atus u n d e r § 1 2 5 5 (i). M o re o v e r, K h a n c a n n o t sh o w th a t a v isa is
“ im m e d iate lya v a ilab le” to h im o r e v e n th a t o n e w ill b e a v a ilab le t o hi m ats om e es t i m abl e t i m e i n the futur e. K han has pr ovi ded no es t i m at e, bey ond the 45 day s he s ugges t ed t o the I J on N o v em b er 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 , o f h o w lon g itw o u ld tak e f o r his w ife’s L aborC ert i fi cat i on t o be appr oved; ther efor e, anycont i nuance w oul d be i ndefi ni t e. A s the El eventh C i r cui texpl ai ned on s i m i l ar fa cts i n Z af

ar: [S] i nce a l l thatthe pet i t i oner s offe r ed the i m m i gr at i on j udges w as the “s pecul at i ve” pos s i bi l i tythatats om e poi nt i n t he f uture th e y m ay re c e iv e , o r in Z a f a r’s c a se , h is fa ther m ay r ece i ve, l aborcert i fi cat i on, pet i t i oner s have fai l ed t o demonstr at e thattheyhad a vis a pet i t i on “i m m edi at el yavai l abl e” t o them becaus e theycoul d not have f i l ed an “ appr ovabl e” vi s a pet i t i on w i thoutthe l abor cert i fi cat i on i n t he fi r s tpl ace , w hi ch i s a pr er equi s i t e for re lie f u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 (i ) a n d 8 C .F .R . § 24 5. 10 (a) (3)
. A tthe ti m e of the i m m i grat i on j ud ges’ d e n ials o f

th e p e tit io n e rs’ m o tio n s to c o n tin u e th e ir rem o v al pro ce ed ing s, itis cl ea r th at th e p eti ti o n ers w ere i nel i gi bl e foradj us t m ent s t o perm anentr es i dents t atus under§ 1255( i ) and ther e thus w er e no vi s as “ i mme d i a t e l ya v a i l a b l e ” t o th e m. Z afa r , 426 F. 3d at1336 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; acc or d A hm ed, 2006 W L 1 0 6 4 1 9 6 , a t * 5
. I ti s true, as K han compl ai ns , thatD O L ’ s appar entdel ay in p ro c e ss in g h is w if

e ’s L a b o r C e rtific a tio n is b e y o n d h is contr ol , and thati f the D O L had ac t ed more pr om pt l yhe mi ght be adj us t i ng hi s s t atus r atherthan fa ci ng r emoval
. H ow ever , on the pr es entfac t s thatdel aydoes notr es tr i ctthe I J ’ s s cope of di s cr et i on t o t he s ol e opt i on of gr ant i ng cont i nuance . C f. A hm ed, 2006 W L 1064196, at*5 ( “I n thi s m att er , the i m m i grat i on j ud ge si m plyexerci sed his dis cret i on atthe fir stO n ap p ea l bef o re the B IA , K h an claim ed that the IJ 8 im p ro p e rlyd e n ied h im a c o n tin u a n c e b u t d id n o t p u t th is c laim in t e r ms o f c o n s t i tu t i o n a l d u e p r o c e s s . S e e Ap p . a t 5
. T h e r e f o r e , we c o n sid er br i efl yw hetherK han has exh aust ed h i s r em edies w i th r e s p e c tt o th i s c l a i m. W e h av e jur i s di ct i on overan al i en’ s cl ai m onl yw her e the a lien h a s “ ra ise [ d ] a n d e x h a u st[ e d ] h is or h e r re m e d ies a s to [ th a t] claim
. ” A b d u lr ah am an v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 0 F
. 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 -95 (3d C ir
. 2003) ; s ee Bak v. I N S , 6 8 2 F
. 2d 441, 442- 43 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( per cu ri am ) (ho lding ex h au sti o n req u ir em en t i s jurisdicti o n al). H o w e v e r , “ e x h a u s t i o n o f a d m i n i s tr a t i v e r e m e d i e s i s n o ta l w a ys re q u ir e d w h e n th e p e titio n e r a d v a n c e s a d u e p ro c e s s c la im .” S ew ak v . IN S , 9 0 0 F
. 2 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 0 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ); see B o n h o m etre v. G on z a l e s , 41 4 F. 3d 44 7 n
. 7 ( 3d Ci r . 20 05 ) ( c i t i ng V a r ga s v. I N S, 16 s t age of thi s l engthyand di s cr et i onarypr oces s w hen he r efus ed t o gr antA hm ed a c ont i nuance forgood caus e s how n. ”)
. K han has conce ded thathe i s r emovabl e as char ged and makes no cl ai m foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , orr el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. M or eover , he has fai l ed t o fi l e a vi s a pet i t i on and i s pr es ent l yi nel i gi bl e foran adj us t m entof s t atus . See i d. ( rul i ng thatan al i en i n K han’ s pos i t i on “l acke d good caus e fora cont i nuance beca us e he w as i nel i gi bl e forr el i ef u n d er the relev an t st atutes” ). A s w i th t he pet i t i oner s i n A hm ed and Zafa r , K han has o f f e re d o n ly“ th e ‘sp e c u lativ e ’ p o ss ib ili tyth a t at s o m e p o in t in the f uture . . . h is [w ife] m ay rec eive , labo r ce rt ifi ca ti o n . ” Z af ar, 4 2 6 F
. 3 d at 13 3 6
. U lt im ately , the d ec isi o n to ad just K h an ’s s t a tu s l i e s wi th i n th e d i s c r e t i o n o f th e At t o rn e yGe n e r a l , a n d we cannots aythaton the pr es entfac t s the r efus al of a c ont i nuance w as a n ab u se o f d iscreti o n . C f. i d
. (“B ase d o n this reco rd, th ere w as no abus e of di s cr et i on i n deny i ng [the] m ot i ons t o cont i nue [ th e ] r e m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s .” ); A h m e d , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 0 6 4 1 9 6 , a t * 5
. I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s a b u s e - o f

- d i s c r e t i o n c l a i ms , Kh a n c l a i ms thatthe r ej ect i on of hi s cont i nuance r eques tw or ked a de ni al of hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s of l aw underthe Fi fth A m endment
. T o 88 3 1 F .2 d 9 0 6 , 9 0 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (“ [ D ]u e p ro c e ss c laim s g e n e ra lly are ex em p t fro m [th e e x h au sti o n req u ir em en t] b ec au se th e B IA d o es n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to ad jud icate co n sti tuti o n al i ssu es.”)). In B o n h o m e tre , P e tit io n e r B o n h o m e tr e ra ise d b e f o re th is c o u r ta c l a i m o f

p r o c e d u r a l e rr o r h e h a d n o tr a i s e d b e f o r e th e BI A. A l though he pre s ent ed hi s cl ai m “i n the l anguage of pr ocedur al due pr oces s , ” w e i ns t ead vi ew ed i tas an admi ni s tr at i ve cl ai m of p ro c e d u ra l er r o r th a t th e B IA c o u ld h a v e a d d re ss e d o n a p p e a l. B onhom etr e, 414 F. 3d at 448; s ee Sew ak, 900 F. 2d at670 ( not i ng thatw her e a “ due pr oces s cl ai m amount s t o a pr ocedur al err or corr ect abl e thr ough the admi n ist r at i ve pr oces s , ” w e cons i der w hetherthe corr ect abl e err orw as r ai sed bel ow forexhaus t i on purpos es )
. B eca us e B onhom etr e’ s cl ai m , s tr i p p ed o f i t s “due p r o c e s s ” l a b e l , h a d n o tb e e n r a i s e d b e f o r e th e BI A, we h e l d th a twe l acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the cl ai m . B onhom etr e, 414 F. 3d at 448; s ee a l s o Sew ak, 900 F. 2d at670- 71; V ar gas , 831 F. 2d at908. T he present case i s si m i l ar t o B on ho m et re i n tw o respect s. F i r s t , Kh a n r a i s e s a p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m f o rth e f i r s tt i me i n hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew . Second, beca us e thi s cl ai m , s tr i pped of its “ d u e p ro c e ss ” lab e l, i s a c la im o f p ro c e d u ra l er ro r th a t co u ld have be en addr es sed bythe B I A on appea l , the r equi r ementthat K han exhaus t r emedi es appl i es . H ow ever , unl i ke i n B onhom etr e, K h a n d id ra ise th is c la im (w ith o u t it s “ d u e p ro c e ss ” lab e l) in h is ap p ell ate b ri ef

b ef o re the B IA
. A p p . at 5 (c h all en g ing “the IJ’s r efus al t o gr ant an adj ournm ent ”)
. T her efor e, w e have j ur i s di ct i on o v er K h an ’s “d u e pro ce ss” claim , b u t w e trea t it as a cl aim o f m ere “ p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r c o rr e c ta b le th ro u g h th e a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro c e s s .” S e w a k , 9 0 0 F .2 d a t 6 7 0 ; s e e B o n h o m e t r e , 4 1 4 F .3 d a t 4 4 7 n .8 ( ci t i ng Sew ak, 900 F. 2d at670) ; cf. Sew ak, 900 F
. 2 d at 670- 71 ( “Sew ak' s due pr oces s cl ai m am o u nt s t o a pr ocedur al err or c o r r e c t a b l e th r o u g h th e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e p r o c e s s . Th u s , b e f o r e we can c ons i derSew ak' s pet i t i on, w e m us t as s ur e our s el ves thathe has exhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . . . . Sew ak r ai s ed bef or e the B IA , a n d th e B IA c o n sid e re d , th e sa m e iss u e s h e ra ise s in h is pet i t i on forr evi ew i n thi s C our t
. It cannotbe deni ed thatSew ak h a s e x h a u ste d h is re m e d yo f a p p e a l to th e B IA .”) ( f o o tn o te 17o m itted). m ake thi s cl ai m s ucce s s ful l y , K han “musts how thathe w as pr event ed fr om r eas onabl ypr es ent i ng hi s cas e. ” U s pango v. A s hcr oft , 289 F. 3d 226, 231 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot at i on m arks and c ita tio n o m itte d ). H e h a s f a ile d to m a k e a n ys u c h s h o w in g . I ndeed, K han’ s due pr oces s ar gum entm er el yr eca s t s hi s abus eof- di s cr et i on ar gum enti n cons t i tut i onal t erm s and ca n be deni ed for the reasons al readyst at ed. M oreove r, “[d]ue p rocess chal l enges t o deport at i on pr ocee di ngs r equi r e an i ni t i al s how i ng o f su b sta n tial p re

ju d ice .” A n w a r v . IN S , 1 1 6 F .3 d 1 4 0 , 1 4 4 (5 th C i r . 1997)
. K han ca nnots how thathe has been pr ej udi ced by the I J ’ s deni al of hi s cont i nuance m ot i on beca us e ther e i s no evi dence as t o w hen, i f eve r , hi s w i fe’ s L aborC ert i fi cat i on m i ghtbe gr ant ed. T he G overnm entcorr ect l yar gues thatK han
“ h a s n o c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to h a v e h is p ro c e e d in g s h e ld in a b e y a n c e w h ile h e a tte m p ts , b e la te d ly, to re s to re h is s ta tu s .” M ot i on t o D i s m i s s at11. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, th e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to di s m i s s forw antof j ur i s di ct i on i s deni ed and K han’ s pet i t i on for revi ew i s denied on the m eri t s.