FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 23 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 05- 14489 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 96- 110- 814 A B B A S T A B R I Z I A N , P e titio n e r , v ersu s 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.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

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

_________________________ ( M ay 23, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P et i t i on erA bb as T abri zi an, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I ra n, pet i t i on s f or re vi ewTa brizia n n ote s th at th eI -1 30 pe tition fi le d o n h is b e half

by hisU. S. c iti zen

broth e r ac ts 1 to grandfather him under I NA § 245(i). H owever, h e h as aba ndoned any

arguments that he may have raised below reg ardingany error the IJmade by

not continuing his removal proce eding s based on thependingI -1 30 pe tition its e lf be c a us eheonly

argue s o n a

pp e al th at th ec onti nu ance should have be en grante d due to his pendinglab o r ce rt i fi cation. Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 327 F.3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). 2 of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) f i na l or de r , a f

f i r m i ng w i thout opi ni on the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o c ont i nue the re m ov al hear i ng un der the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on A ct(“ IN A ”) , I NA § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , 2 4 1 ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , 1 2 3 1 ; 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 9 . In M ar ch 20 03 , the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce i ss ued T abri zi an a not i ce t o app ea r bec ause he had exceeded the am ou ntof t i m e thathe w as p e r m itte d to s ta y in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T ab r iz ia n s u b m itte d a m o tio n , w ith s uppor t i ng doc um e nt a t i on, t o c ont i nue the pr oc e e di ngs be c a us e he ha d a pe ndi ng l abor cert i fi ca t i on , and h e w as the benefi ci ary of a n I-130 pet i t i on , w hi ch w as fi l ed by hi s U . S . ci t i ze n b rother. A ft ergrant i ng m ul t i pl e c on t i nu ance s of the re m ov al 1 he a r i ng, i n F e brua ry 2004, the I J de ni e d T abr i z i a n’ s m ot i on f ora c ont i nua nc e f

or addi t i on al att orney prepar at i on t i m e a nd foun d T abri zi an re m ov abl e. T he B IA a f f ir m e d th e I J ’s d e c is io n w ith o u t o p in io n . O n appe a l , T abr i z i a n a r gue s tha tw e s houl d r e - e xa m i ne ourde c i s i on i n Zaf ar v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 4 - 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . Zaf arhel d that be c a us e the pe t i t i one r s w e r e nots t a tut or i l y e l i gi bl e f ora dj us tm e ntt o r e s i de nt3

s t a tus , ha vi ng f

a i l e d t o s how i m m e di a t e vi s a a va i l abi l i ty , the r e w a s no abus e of d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g a co n t i n u an ce. T ab ri zi an n o t es th atw e d i d n o tad d ress a S e v e n th C ir c u it o p in io n , Su b h a n v . A s h c r o ft , 38 3 F . 3d 59 1 (7th C i r. 20 04 ), w hi ch r e ve r s e d a r e m ova l or de ri n w hi c h the I J di d notgi ve s ound r e a s ons f orde ny i ng a m o t i o n fo r a co n t i n u an ce i n si m i l ar ci rcu m st an ces. W e r evi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on i n thi s c as e, no tthe B IA ’ s, because the B IA a f f i r m e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on w i thoutopi ni on, the r e by m a ki ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on the f in a l a g e n c y d e te r m in a tio n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( e ) ( 4 ) ; Mendo za v. U . S. A t t ’y G e n. , 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A n I J ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nta c ont i nua nc e i n a n i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ng

“ f orgood c a us e s how n. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 29. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the IJ ’ s di sc re t i on ary dec i si on t o d eny T abri zi an’ s m ot i on for acont i nu ance for a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Zaf

ar , 426 F . 3d a t1334- 35. A s w e e xpl a i ne d i n Zaf ar : S e c tio n 2 4 5 ( i) o f

th e I N A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) ( 1 ) , p e r m its a c ert ai n cl as s of a l i ens w ho w er e otherw i se in e lig ib le to adj ustthei r t em po ra ry re si dentst atus i n the U ni t ed S t at es t o p ay a penal ty f

ee for a dj ust i ng thei r s t atus t o thatof a “ pe r m a ne ntr e s i de nt ” a nd be c ons i de r e d “ gr a ndf a the r e 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 “ approv abl e w hen fi l ed. ” 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 fi l i ng , ” the appl i ca t i on for l abor cert i fi ca t i on w as “p r o p e r ly f

ile d , m e r ito r io u s in f

a c t, a n d n o n - f

r iv o lo u s . . .

. ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 45 . 10 (a )( 3). O nce the A tt orney G ener al4 r e c e i ve s the appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus a nd the ap p r o p r ia te f

e e , h e “m a y ” a d

ju s t th e s ta tu s if

th e a lie n “is e lig ib le to r e c e iv e a n im m ig r a n t v is a a n d is a d m is s ib le ,” a nd “ a n i m m i gr a ntvi s a i s i m m e di a t e l y a va i 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 24 5(i )( 2), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) ( 2 ) . A n im m ig r a n t v is a c a n n o t, how e ve r , be i s s ue d t o the a l i e n unt i l the l abor c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s ap p r o v e d . I N A § 2 0 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( C) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 18 2(a) (5). I d. a t1335- 36. W e he l d tha ta n I J doe s notabus e hi s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng a c o n tin u a n c e to p e titio n e r s w h o c a n s h o w o n ly a “s p e c u la tiv e p o s s ib ility th a t . . . they m ay re ce i ve” al abor cert i fi ca t i on i n the future because s uch a show i ng do es notf ul f i l l the “ i m m e di a t e l y a va i l abl e ” vi s a pe t i t i on r e qui r e m e ntf ora dj us tm e ntof s ta tu s u n d e rI N A § 2 4 5 ( i) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) . I d. a t1336. T he f a c t s i n thi s c a s e a r e i de nt i c a l i n r e l e va ntr e s pe c t s t o the f a c t s i n Zaf

ar . 426 F . 3d a t1332- 33. L i ke the pe t i t i one r s i n Zaf ar , T abr i z i a n’ s l aborc e r t i f i c a t i on is c u rr e n tly u n d e rr e v ie w b y th e U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f L ab o r( “D O L ” ) . Zaf

ar ’s ho l di ng , thatthere i s no abu se of di sc re t i on for a n IJ t o d eny acont i nu ance base d on a pe ndi ng l aborc e r t i f i c a t i on, m i rr or s thi s I J ’ s de c i s i on nott o c ont i nue the p r o c e e d in g s p e n d in g a n ap p r o v a l th a t m a y o rm a y n o t h ap p e n . See Zaf ar , 426 F . 3d 1 3 3 5 - 3 6 . I n f

a c t, T ab r iz ia n a d m its th a t Zaf ari s c on trol l i ng l aw , ar gu i ng on l y that Zaf ars houl d be r e c ons i de r e d i n l i ghtof the S e ve nth C i r c ui t ’ s de c i s i on i n Subhan . N everthel es s, “ [our] l aw . . . i s e m ph at i c thaton l y the S up re m e C ou rtor [our] court s i tt i ng en banc ca n j ud i ci al l y overrul e apri or panel deci si on . ” W a lker v. So u th ern5

C o. Servs. , Inc. , 279 F . 3d 1289, 1293 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . B ut e ve n i f one pa ne l c oul d ove rrul e a nothe r , the pa ne l tha tde c i de d Zaf arcl ea rl y w as aw ar e of Subhan be c a us e tha tc a s e i s c i t e d i n Zaf ar , e ve n though i tw a s not a d d r e s s e d a t le n g th . Zaf ar , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 5 . F ur the r m or e , the S e ve nth C i r c ui t ’ s de c i s i on i n Subhan i s di st i ng ui shabl e. In Subhan, the I J gr a nt e d the non- c i t i z e n tw o c ont i nua nc e s i n a n a tt e m ptt o a l l ow the pe ndi ng l aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on t o be pr oc e s s e d by the D O L , buta f t e rthe s e c ond c o n tin u a n c e e x p ir e d , th e I J s u m m a r ily d e n ie d a r e q u e s t f o ra th ir d . Subhan , 383 F . 3d a t593. T he S e ve nth C i r c ui the l d tha tbe c a us e the I J ga ve no r e a s on f orthe d e n ia l, it w a s e rr o n e o u s . I d. a t595. H e r e , how e ve r , the I J ga ve a r e a s on f or denyi ng T abri zi an’ s m ot i on for acont i nu ance by st at i ng thatthe “ approv al of a l aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on i s the ne te qui va l e ntof a c e r t i f i c a t e of m a rr i a ge be tw e e n a [ nonc i t i z e n] a nd a U . S . c i t i z e n, ” but“ the abs e nc e of e i the re l i m i na t e s a ny ba s i s f or cont i nu ance . ” A s the Subhan c our tnot e d, ha d the I J gi ve n a l m os ta ny r e a s on f or th e d e n ia l o f

S u b h a n ’s r e q u e s t, th e d e n ia l w o u ld h a v e s a tis f ie d th e la w . Subhan , 383 F . 3d a t593- 94. H e r e , the I J ga ve a r e a s on ba s e d on hi s unde r s t a ndi ng of the s t a t e of the l a w r e ga r di ng c ont i nua nc e s a nd thus s a t i s f i e d Subhan . Ac c o r d i n g l y , f

o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.