T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R A M O N R A M O S -J IM E N E Z , a. k. a. F i del R am os Ji m enez , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70444 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 210- 980 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 3, 2010 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G O U L D , IK U T A , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R am on R am os-J i m enez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew o f th e d e c is io n b yth e B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . 

# FI LED APR07 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

1. T he B IA di d n oterr i n con strui ng the m ot i on t o rec on si der, i n p art , as am o tio n to r e o p e n , a s P e titio n e rs u b m itte d n e w e v id e n c e in s u p p o rt o f h is m o tio n . T h erefo re, th e B IA d i d n o terr i n fi n d i n g th atth e m o t i o n , t o th e ex t en tth ati tw as a m o tio n to r e o p e n , w a s n u m e r ic a llyb a rr e d . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . 2. W e do n otl ac k j uri sdi ct i on ov erR am os’ s c l ai m thatthe B IA abused i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r , be c aus e the B I A a ddr e s s e d the is s u e o f p r im af a c ie e lig ib ility . See A bebe v. G on zales , 432 F . 3d 1037, 1040- 41 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T h e B I A h e ld th a t “th e r e s p o n d e n t r e m a in s in e lig ib le to appl y f or adj ustm entof st atus because the se cond Im m i grantP et i t i on for A l i en W orker ( F orm I- 14 0) fi l ed on hi s behal f i s s t i l l pend i ng and h as no tye tbeen approv ed. ” W e c a nnotde t e rm i ne w he the rthe B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng R a m o s ’s m o tio n w ith r e g a r d to th is is s u e . F ir s t, th e B I A ’s s ta te m e n t ab o v e is i na c c ur a t e , be c aus e 8 C . F . R . § 1245. 2( a ) ( 2) ( i ) a l l ow s f orthe c onc urr e ntf

i l i ng of both the I - 140 a nd the I - 485 ( a dj us tm e ntof s t a tus ) . S e c ond, ba s e d upon our re vi ew of the appl i cabl e c as e l aw , re gu l at i on s, and st atut es , i ti s notcl ear w hether a n appr ove d I - 140 i s r e qui r e d f orthe vi s at o be “ i m m e di a t e l ya va i l abl e , ” w he n the p e titio n e rh a s a n ap p r o v e d lab o rc e rtif ic a te w ith ap r io r ityd a te o f A p r il 2 0 , 2 0 0 1 .3

See 8 C .F .R . § 2 4 5 .1 ( g ) ; s e e al s o Me r c hant

v . U . S. A t torne

yG e n. , 461 F . 3d 1375, 1 3 7 8 - 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “F in a lly , M e r c h a n t h a s s u c c e s s f u llyc o m p le te d a ll a c t i ons r e qui r e d by§ 1255( i ) t o be pe r f orm e d byhi m a nd s a t i s f i e d a l l of the s t a tut orypr e r e qui s i t e s of § 1255( i )

— i . e . , the t i m e l yf i l i ng of hi s appl i c a t i on f

or l aborc e rt i f

i c a t i on, the appr ova l the r e of , a nd the appr opr i a t e f

i l i ng of aF orm I - 140 ( p e titio n f

o rv is a ) a n d o f

aF o rm I - 4 8 5 ( ap p lic a tio n f o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s ) w ith th e D H S , a s w e ll a s d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t a n im m ig r a n t v is an u m b e ris im m e d ia te ly a v a ilab le .” ) . T here fore , w e r em and t o the B IA t o revi ew w hether R am os had an im m e d ia te lya v a ilab le v is aa t th e tim e o f h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . See L an za v. A s h c r o ft , 389 F . 3d 917, 919 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( r e m a ndi ng f orthe B I A t o c l a r i f

ythe g r o u n d s f

o rits d e c is io n ) . R am os al so fa i l ed t o d epartpri or t o the expi ra t i on of the vo l un t ary departure p eri o d . W h eth er th e m o t i o n t o reco n si d er m u stb e d en i ed fo r th atreaso n i s al so u n c le a r . See G rana do s- O segu era v. Mukasey , 54 6 F . 3d 10 11 , 10 15 -16 (9th C i r. 2008) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . R a m os a r gue s tha the uni l a t e r a l l yw i thdr e w hi s r e que s tf or vo l un t ary departure w hen h e r enew ed hi s I -140 appl i ca t i on . W hether an appl i ca t i on for a dj ustm entof st atus ac t s a s aun i l at er al w i thd raw al of vo l un t ary departure has no tye tbeen address ed by the B IA , there fore w e r em and for the B IA4

to a d d r e s s th is is s u e in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . See IN

S v. O rla n do V

en tu ra , 537 U . S . 12, 16 -17 (20 02 ) ( per c uri am ).

3. T he B I A di d note rri n f i ndi ng tha tR a m os f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e the r e q u is ite p r e

ju d ic e f o rh is c la im o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. R a m o s a s s e rts th a t h is in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im a r o s e o u t o f th e m is h a n d lin g o f

h is I- 14 0 app l i ca t i on . T he ac t s c l ai m ed t o b e i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l o c c u rr e d p r io rto a n d s e p a r a te f r o m th e r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s , th e r e f o r e th e B I A d id n o t e rrin r e

je c tin g R a m o s ’s c la im . See B alam -Chu c v . Mukasey , 547 F . 3d 1044, 1 0 5 0 - 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . DE NI E D I N P AR T , GR AN T E D I N P AR T a n d RE MAND E D.