Er ic H. Ho lde r, Jr., is a uto matic a lly

su bs tit ute d a s th e re sp on de nt i n th is c a se purs ua nt t o * Fe dera l Rule of Appellate Proc edure 43(c) (2). 08 -40 81 -ag Ahma d v. Holder UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER

R ul i ngs by summ ary order d o not h av e pre cedent i al ef fect . C i t ati on to a s umm ary o rder f i l ed on or aft er Ja nua ry 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d t h is c o u r t’ s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W he n c i t i ng a s ummar y or de r i n a d ocu men t f i l ed w i t h t hi s c our t , a par t y mus t c i t e ei ther t he Fede ral A p p en d i x o r a n elec tro n i c da ta b a se (w i th th e no ta tion “ su m m a ry o rd er ” ). A p a rty citi n g a su m m a ry o rd er m u st se r v e a c o p y o f it o n a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated te rm o f t h e Uni ted States Court of Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of New York, on 3 the 13 day

of May , two thousand ten. th 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 7 RO SEM AR Y S. POO L ER, 8 P E T E R W

. H A LL, 9 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges

. 11 12 13 MUSHTAQ I MRAN AHMAD- MUSHTAQ, a.k.a

. 14 I MRAN MUSHJ A MOSHTAQ AH MAD, 15 Petitioner , 16 17 -v.- No. 08-4081-a g 18 Summary Orde r 19 ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., U.S. ATTORNEY 20 G E N E RA L, * 21 Respondent

. 22 23 24 Wil liam E

. Graves, J r., Graves & Doyle, B oston, MA, for Petitioner

. 25 26 Mi chel e Y. F. S arko , Of fi ce of Imm igr a ti onL it igat io n (M ich ael F. 27 He rtz , A c ti n gA s s is ta n t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l, Ci v il D iv is io n , and 28 Michelle G. L atour, Assistant Dire ctor, Of fice of Immigra tion 29 L itigation, on the brief) , U.S. Depar tment of J ustice,for Respondent

.2

1 2 3 4 UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON of this petition for re view of a B oard of Immigration 5 Appea ls (“B IA” ) dec ision, itis hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 6 Gover

nment’s motion to remand to the B IA is GRANTED. The decision of the B IA is VACATED, 7 and the c ase is REMANDED to the BIA for f urther pr ocee dings. Ahmad’s petition for r eview a nd 8 mot ion

fo r s tay of de po rt atio n a

re DI SMI SSED a s mo ot. 9 Petitio n er M u s h taq Imran Ahma d-Mushtaq (“ Ahmad”) , a native a nd citizen of Pakistan, 10 seeks r eview of a Jul y 22, 2008 order

of the B IA adoptingand af firmingan August 31, 2006 decision 11 of Immigration J udg e (“ I J ”) Micha el W. Straus. The I J had found Ahmad r emovable a s char g ed and 12 als o denied Ahma d’s application for adjustment of status af ter c oncluding , based on the BIA’s 13 d ec ision in In re Pe rez Vargas , 2 3 I & N D e c . 8 29 (B IA 2 00 5) , th at he la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to 14 deter

mine whether

Ahmad’s a

pproved e mploy

ment-base d visa peti ti o n

r e main e d valid under se ction 15 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j), following a chang e in Ahmad’s 16 employ er sponsor. See In re Mushtaq Imran Ahmad-Mushtaq a.k.a. Imran Mushja Moshtaq Ahmad , 17 No. A79 076 798 (B .I .A. J uly 22, 2008), aff’g

No. A79 076 798 (Immig. Ct. Hartf ord, CT, Aug . 31, 18 20 06 ). We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th t he un de rl yingfa c ts a

nd pr oc e dura l hi sto ry

in t his 19 case . 20 The Gove rnment re quests that we rema nd this c ase to the BIA in light of the B oard’ s rec ent 21 decision in In reMa rc al N e to , 25 I & N De c. 1 69 (B IA 2010), whic h overr uled the B oard’ s 22 prec edent in Vargas . As noted, both the I J and B IA in this case re lied on Va rg as in concludingthat 23 the I J lacke d

ju r is d ic ti o nto d e te r

mi n e w h e th e r

A h ma d ’ s n e wjo b w a s “ in th e s ame o r

a s im il ar 24 occu p at i o n al classification as the job for whic h [hi s adjustment of status] petit ion was filed,” 83 1 U. S.C. § 1 15 4( j) , a nd the re fo re wh e the r h is e mpl oy me nt- ba se d vis a pe tit ion re ma ine d va lid . A s a 2 result, they

considere d them s el v es p ower less to offer Ahmad the r elief he soug ht. In Ne to , by 3 contra st, after

revie wing decisions of the F ourth, Fifth, a nd Six th Circuits rejectingthe re asoningof 4 Vargas , the B oard c oncluded that I J s do in fac t possess jurisdiction to make the re levant 5 deter

minations under sec tion 1154(j). See25 I& NDec . at 171-76 (notingdecisions in Sung v. 6 Keisler , 5 05 F .3 d 3 72 (5 th C ir . 2 00 7) ; Matovski v . Gonzales , 4 92 F .3 d 7 22 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) ; Pe rez7 Vargas v. Gonzales , 478 F.3d 191 ( 4th Cir. 2007)). 8 Un de r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s, we a g re e tha t r e mand to t he B oa rd fo r f ur the r p roceedi ngs is 9 appropr iate. See NLRB v. Food StoreEmploye es Union , 4 1 7 U. S

. 1 , 10 n.10 (1974) ( “[A] court 10 re vie wi ngan a g e nc y de c isi on fo llo wi ngan inte rv e ning chang e of po lic y by the a g e nc y

sh ou ld 11 rema

nd to permit the ag ency

to decide in the f

irst instanc e whether

g iving the c hang e re trospective 12 e ff

e c t w ill be st e ff

e c tuate the po lic ie s und e rl yingthe a g e nc y ' s g ov e rn inga c t.” ); se e als o X iu F e n X ia 13 v. Muk

asey , 510 F.3d 162, 167- 68 (2d Cir. 2007) (discussingwhen r emand unde r Fo od Sto re 14 Em

plo y e es is proper)

. Acc ording ly , the Government’s m otion to remand to the B IA is GRANTED, 15 the dec ision of the BI A i s VACATED, and the ca se is REMANDED to the B IA . Ahmad’ s petition 16 fo r r e vie w a

nd mot ion fo r s tay of de po rt atio n a

re DI SMI SSED a s mo ot. 17 18 19 20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24