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 Albe rto R. Gonzales as re sp on de nt f

or thi s c a se . T he Cle rk

is r e sp e c tf

ull y dir e c te d to ame nd

the of fi c ia l c a pti on to confor m to that lis ted above

. 07

- 05 56

- ag Jaba r v. H ol der UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

### SU MM AR

Y O RD ER R ULI NG S BY SUMM ARY O RDER DO NO T HAVE P RECEDE NTI AL E F F ECT . C I TATI O N TO A SUMM ARY O RDER FI LE D O N O R AF TER JANUARY 1, 2007 , I S P ERM I TTE D AND I S G O VERNED BY F EDERAL R U L E O F A P P ELL ATE P RO CEDURE 32. 1 A N D THI S CO URT ’ S L O CAL R ULE 32. 1.1 . W H EN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER I N A DO CUM ENT F I LED W I TH THI S CO URT , A P ARTY MUST C I TE EI TH ER T H E F EDERAL A P P ENDI X O R AN ELE CTRO NI C DATAB AS E ( W I TH TH E NOTATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER ”) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO P Y O F I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REP RES ENTE 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 21 day st of April, two thousand a

nd ten. 1 PRES ENT: 2 J OHN M. WAL KER, J R., 3 CH ES TERJ . S TRAUB, 4 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 5 Circuit Judges

. 6

_______________________________________________ 7 8 FAZ AL

J AB AR, also known as AB DOOL FAZ AL J AB AR, 9 10 Petitioner , 11 v. No. 07-0556-a g 12 13 UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, 14 ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY 1 5 G E N E RA L, 16 17 Re sp on de nts . * 18

______________________________________________ 19 20 Khag endra Ghar ti-Chhetry , Chhetry

& A ssociates, Ne w2 1 York, NY , for Petitioner

. 2 3 Tony West, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral; Janice K. Redfe rn, 4 S r . L i t i g at i o nC o un s e l ; T h an k f u l T

. V an d e r s t ar , A t t o r

n e y; 5 Offic e of Immigra tion L itigation, United States De partment 6 of Jus tice, Washing ton D.C., for Re sp on de nts . 7 8 Up on

du e c on sid e ratio n o f t

his pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w o f a Boar d o f Immi g ra tio n App e a ls 9 (“B I A”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for re view 10 is DENI ED. 11 Petitioner Fa zal J abar , a native a nd citizen of Guy ana, se eks re view o f a J anuar y 19, 2007 12 or de r o f t

he B I A dis mis sin g his a

pp e a l of the July 21 , 20 05 or de r of I mmi g ra tio n Judg e (“ I J”) Phi lip 13 J . Montante, Jr., which denied Petitioner’s a pplications for wa iver of ina dmissibi lity and adjustment 14 of status a

nd order ed Petitioner excluded from the United States. In re Fazal Jabar , No. A71 970 15 901 (B .I .A. J an. 19, 2007), dismissing N o . A 0 7 1 9 7 1 9 0 1 ( I mm ig

. Ct

. B u f f a lo Ju l. 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 )

. We 16 a ssume the pa

rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th the un de rl ying fa c ts and pr oc e dura l his tor y of the c a se and

wi th 17 the issues prese nted for r eview. 18 Under

the circ umstances pr esente d i n this case, we revie w the dec ision of the I J as 19 supplemented by the B I A. See Dong Gao v. BIA , 4 82 F .3 d 1 22 , 1 25 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ). Th e a pp lic a ble 20 standards of revie w are well-e stablished. See 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ); Y anqin W eng v. H older , 562 21 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Specifica lly , we r eview que stions of law and the a pplication of law 22 to u

nd isp ute d f

a c t de novo

. Y

anqin W eng , 562 F.3d at 51 3 . Her e, we revie w de novo the B I A’s 23 conclusion that it and the I J lacke d jurisdiction over Petitioner’s applica tions. 24 Citi ngthe BI A’ s d ec i s i o n in In re Castro-Padron , 21 I . & N . Dec . 379 (B .I .A. 1996) (e n 25 banc) and 8 C. F. R . § 245.2(a) (1) ( 2005), the I J noted that he lac ked jurisdiction over a pplicationsThe I J cited 8 C.F.R. § 245.1 (2005) . This provision applied to case s befor e the f ormer 1 I NS (now USCI S). The provision was in substanc e identica l with 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(c)( 8) (2005), whic h applied to the Executive Off ice f or Immigra

tion Review, including the immigration courts. See Ceta v. Muk asey , 5 35 F .3 d 6 39 , 6 42 n. 5 ( 7th Cir . 2 00 8) ; see also Sheng Gao Ni v. BIA , 520 F.3d 125, 129 ( 2d Cir. 2008). The pa rties use these provisions intercha ng eably

. 3 1 for a djustment of sta tus by an alien in e x clusion proce eding s, except in lim ited circ umstances not 2 prese nt in t h e ca s e. The I J further conclude d that Petitioner was an “ arr iving a lien” under § 1 3 245.1(c) (8), be cause had not ca rried his burde n under 8 C.F.R. § 245.22 (2005) to demonstrate that 4 he had ree ntere d the Unit ed S tates on any particula r date afte r hi s initial arr est in Fe bruar y 1992. The 5 I J indicated that Petitioner c ould file his adjustment application with the district director

. 6 The B I A dis m i s s ed the appeal on the ground that it lacke d jurisdiction over Petitioner’s 7 adjustment application pursua nt to Castro-Padron beca

use Petitioner re mained subjec t to ex clusion 8 proce eding s. I t reje cted Petit ioner’s argument that his departur e fr om the United States in 1992 and 9 alleg ed subseque nt return meant that his or igina l 1992 exclusion proc eedinghad ter minated, noting 10 that “the mer e alleg ation of a subsequent reentry into this country is not sufficient to defe at exclusion 11 proce ed i n gs that have a lrea dy commence d,” and that Petiti oner ha d conce ded the grounds of 12 excludability

. In re Fazal Jabar , A71 970 901 (B .I .A. 2007). 13 In Castro-Padron , the B I A held t h a t “ [i ]n e xc lu s io n p r ocee dings, the I mmigration J udg es and 1 4 th e B o ar d

gen er al l y l ac k j uri s d i ct i o nt o en t ert ai nan ap p l i ca t i o nfo r a d j u s t m en to f s t atu s un d er

s ection 15 245 of the [I

NA].” Castro-Padron , 21 I . & N . Dec . at 379. In line with Castro-Padron , the re levant 16 regulations at the time the I J consi d er ed Petitioner’s application directed a person in Petitioner’s 17 situation to file his application for adjustment of st atus with the di strict direc tor, and did not provide 18 for suc h an application to be made in exclusion procee dings. 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)( 1) (2005)

.4 1 Petitioner does not contest that the I J g ener ally lacks jurisdiction to consider a n application for 2 a dju stm e nt o f s tatus ma de by an a lie n in

e xclu sio n p ro c e e din g s, but argue s tha t th is princ ipl e is 3 inapplicable to him bec ause A ) the immigr ation judge err ed in conc luding tha t P eti tioner is an 4 “ar

riving alien” a

nd B) Petitioner was not in “excl u s i o n proce eding s” bec ause that proce eding 5 terminated when he le ft the country in Fe bruar y 1992. These two arguments are in effe ct the same : 6 Petitioner argues that the e x clusion proce edingcommence d ag ainst him on Fe b ru ar y 5, 1992 7 te rm inate d when P etiti on e r w a s ta ke n b a c k to Cana da

by the Ne w Y or

k St ate po lic e on

that sa me 8 dat e, an d there fore when Petitioner a lleg edly re- enter ed the c ountry

in Febr uary 1993 he wa s no 9 longe r an “ arr iving a lien” as that term is defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(q)

. 10 We c on c lud e that Pe tit ion e r’ s re tur n to Cana da

on F e br ua ry 5, 19 92 did

no t “ te rm inate ” his 11 pendingexclusion proceeding , nor did any thing e lse that happe ned prior to the time the I J considere d 12 Petitioner’s application for adjustment of status, and ther efor e that the B I A an d I J p r o p e r ly

conclude d 13 that they

lacke d jurisdiction over his applications. 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a )(1) (2005). A he aringwas 14 schedule d in Petiti oner’ s exclusion pro ce ed i n gs for J uly 29, 1992, afte r Petitioner had be en 15 transporte d back to Cana da, but Petition er did not appear . The I J ’s orde r, issued Jul y 30, 1992, 16 ind ic ate d th at Pe tit ion e r’ s c a se wo uld be “ a dmi nis tr ativ e ly

c los e d” and

that no fu rt he r a c tio n w ou ld 17 be take n on it by

the cour t “until [ Petitioner] i s located a nd a motion to rec alenda

r is filed.” App. 18 340. I t was Petitioner who made the m otion to rec alenda r on Dec ember 8, 2003, and who then on 19 May

27, 2004, moved for “ Termination of the ong oing proce eding s.” App. 313. This seque nce of 20 events is clea

rly inconsistent with the Petiti oner’ s curr ent argument that the proc eedingterminated 21 on its own when he depar ted the country in F ebrua

ry 1992. Petitioner points to no event takingplace 22 be tw e e n th e ini tiatio n o f e xclu sio n p ro c e e din g s o n F e br ua ry 5, 19 92 , an d h is m oti on

to t e rm inate inAlthough the applicable regulations do not provide a g ener al def inition of when 2 exclusion proceeding s terminate f or purpose s of deter

mining whe ther a

n alien is in such proce eding s, our conc lusion finds further support in 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(c )(8) (ii) (8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(c) (9)( ii) at the time of Petitioner’s he aringbefor e the I J ). Section 1245.1(c )(8) makes i n el i gi b l e f

o r a d j u s t m en to f s t atu s an y

al i en “w h o s ee k s t o ad

j u s ts t atu s b as edu

p o na m arri age which occ urre d on or af

ter Nove mber 10, 1986, a nd while the alien w as in exclusion, deportation, or removal pr ocee dings, or judicial proce eding s relatingthere to.” Id. § 1245.1(c) (8). Section 1245.1(c) (8)( ii) defines when “[t]he period duringwhich the a lien is in ex clusion, deportation, or removal pr ocee dings, or judicial proce eding s relatingthere to, terminates”: (A) When the a lien depar ts from the United States while a n order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstandingor bef ore the expiration of the voluntary depar ture tim e g ra nte d in c onne c tio n w ithan a lte rn ate or de r o f d e po rt atio n o r r e mov a l; (B ) Wh e n th e a lie n is fo un d n ot t o b e ina dmi ssi ble or de po rt a ble fr om t he Un ite d St ate s; (C) When the F orm I -122, I -221, I -860, or I -862 is canc eled; (D) When pr ocee dings a

re te rminated by

the immigration judge or the B oard of I mmigration Appeals; or (E) When a

petition for re view or a

n action for

habea s corpus is g rante d by a F eder al court on judicial re view. Id. § 1245.1(c) (8)( ii). None of the se eve nts appea rs to have taken plac e in this case.
5 1 May

2004 at which the I J or BIA took a ny action to “ terminate” the exclusion procee ding, nor does 2 he cite a

ny authority for the vie w that exc lusion procee dings ma y terminate simply

due to the 3 Petitioner’s depa

rture f rom the country

. We theref ore c onclude that the I J and B I A lacke d 2 4 jurisdiction over Petitioner’s applica tions. 5 We h ave considere d Petitioner’s rema ining a rguments and conc lude that they are without 6 merit. The Petition for re view is there fore DENI ED. 7 8 F OR TH E CO UR T: 9 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12