FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 24, 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- 13198 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 77- 574- 594 A T T A D A P A S S E , 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 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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 24, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:On November 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 1 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. This leg islation created a new Depa rtment of Homeland Security , abolished the I NS, and transf

erred its functions to the new department. B e c a us ethi s c a sewa s initi ate d whil etheI NS s til l w a s in

e xistenc e , this m e morand um re fersto the ag ency

as the I NS. 2 A tt a da P a s s e , thr ough c ouns e l , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ (“ B IA ’ s”) o rd er affirm i n g th e i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e’ s (“ IJ’ s) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o c ont i nue hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs pe ndi ng a d ju d ic a tio n o f

a s e c o n d p e titio n f

o ra n im m e d ia te r e la tiv e v is a ( “I - 1 3 0 v is a ” ) . P a s s e c ont e nds tha tthe I J ’ s de ni a l of thi s m ot i on w a s a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. F or the r e a s ons s e tf

or th m or e f

ul l y be l ow , w e de ny P a s s e ’ s pe t i t i on. I n A pr i l 1996, P a s s e , a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of T ha i l a nd, w a s a dm i tt e d i nt o the U n ite d S ta te s w ith a n o n - im m ig r a n t B - 2 v is ito r ’s v is a , w ith p e r m is s io n to r e m a in i n the U ni t ed S t at es un t i l O ct ob er5, 19 96 . P as se , ho w ever , re m ai ned i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s pa s tthi s da t e , a l ong w i th hi s f a the ra nd br othe r . T hus , i n A pr i l 2003, the form erIm m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) i ss ued a N ot i ce t o A pp ea r 1 ( “N T A ” ) , c h a r g in g P a s s e w ith r e m o v a b ility , p u r s u a n t to I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (1)( B ), for bei ng an al i en w ho re m ai ned i n the U ni t ed S t at es for a tim e lo n g e rth a n p e r m itte d . In S ep t em b er 2 0 0 3 , d u ri n g a p rel i m i n ary rem o v al h eari n g b efo re th e IJ, P as se , throu gh coun se l , conceded remo vabi l i ty a s c harged. P as se , ho w ever , m ov ed f ora c ont i nua nc e of

hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , a r gui ng tha thi s f a the rha d m a r r i e d aBe causePasse was relying on his status as a minor step-child of a

United States citizen, 2 his step-mother had to suc cessf ully petition for an immediate relative visa on his behalf. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)( 2)(iv). Moreover , either simultaneously with, or subsequent to, the filingof this I -130 visa, Passe had to apply for adjustment of his non-immi grant status. See I NA § 245(a) , 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). To e stablish entitlement to adjustm ent of status, Passe had to show that (1) hehad applied f

or an adjustment of status, (2) he wa s elig ible to rec eive a n immigra

nt vis a and wa s admi ssibleto t

heUnite d St ate s f

or perm anent re side nc e , a

nd (3 ) a n immigra

nt v isa was immediately

availableto him at the time his application was filed. Seeid. 3 U ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n, a nd P a s s e ’ s s t e p- m othe rha d f i l e d on hi s be ha l f

a pe t i t i on f

or a n I - 130 vi s a . A l though the I J not e d tha tthe I - 130 vi s a pe t i t i on ha d be e n de ni e d, r e s u ltin g in th e p r e s e n t r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s , th e I J g r a n te d P a s s e a tw o - m o n th cont i nu ance for P as se ’ s c ou nsel t o d et erm i ne i f a n app ea l of thi s deni al w as p e n d in g . In N o v em b er 2 0 0 3 , w h en P asse’ s rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s re-co n v en ed , P asse m ove d f ora nothe rc ont i nua nc e , e xpl a i ni ng tha the ha d pe ndi ng a s e c ond pe t i t i on f ora n I - 130 vi s a , a s w e l l a s hi s ow n appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus ( “ I - 485 ap p lic a tio n ” ) . I n a s u p p o r tin g w r itte n m o tio n , P a s s e c ite d to th e B I A ’s d e c is io n in

2 M att erof G ar ci a, 16 I & N D ec . 65 3 (B IA 19 78 ), m od i fi ed by, M att erof A rthu r, 2 0 I & N D ec. 4 7 5 (B IA 1 9 9 2 ), an d h e arg u ed th at , al th o u g h th e fi rstI-1 3 0 v i sa p e t i t i o n h i s s t e p - m o th e rh a d f i l e d o n h i s b e h a l f

h a d b e e n d e n i e d b e c a u s e th e I NS ha d f ound i nva l i d he rm a r r i a ge t o P a s s e ’ s f a the r , thi s de ni a l w a s ba s e d on i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e , i ns t e a d of f r a ud. T he gove r nm e ntoppos e d thi s m ot i on, r e s pondi ng tha tP a s s e ’ s m othe rha d notappe a l e d the de ni a l i n S e pt e m be r2002, ofThe re cord refle cts that the first I -130 petition that was filed on Passe ’s behalf was f iled 3 in May 1999 and denie d in September 2002, a nd that Passe’s I -485 application to reg ister perm anent re sidenc eor

a dju st s tatus , b a se d u

po n th efi lingof

theI -1 30 pe tition , w a s f

ile d in Februar y 2001 and denie d in December 2002. 4 her f i rs tpet i t i on for a n I-130 vi sa . P as se re pl i ed thathi s s t ep-m other had 3 subm i tt ed addi t i on al un i dent i fi ed evi dence i n sup po rtof her s ec on d p et i t i on for a n I - 1 3 0 v is a in J u n e 2 0 0 3 . T hatsa m e day , the IJ i ss ued an o ra l deci si on , denyi ng P as se ’ s r equestfor a c ont i nua nc e of

hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . T he I J e xpl a i ne d tha t , i n a ddi t i on t o the f a c ttha tP a s s e w a s r e l y i ng on a s e c ond pe t i t i on f ora n I - 130 vi s a , the de ni a l of the fi rstp et i t i o n h ad n o tb een ap p eal ed . T h e IJ al so reaso n ed as fo l l o w s: W e r e the r e t o be a n ‘ a ut om a t i c ’ c ont i nua nc e e ve r y t i m e a ne w I - 130 [vi sapet i t i on ] w as fi l ed[, ] i rr es pect i ve of the fa t e of a n ear l i er [ pe t i t i on] the n i n e f

f e c t , a n i ndi vi dua l c oul d pe rpe tr a t e pr oc e e di ngs be f or e thi s C our ta d i nf

i ni tum s i m pl y by the e xpe di e ntof c ont i nui ng t o fi l e I-1 3 0 s w i th o u treg ard t o th e d en i al o f earl i er su ch p et i t i o n s. In M ay 2 0 0 5 , th e B IA ad o p ted th e I J’s d ec isio n an d d ism isse d P as se ’s appe a l . T he B I A a l s o e xpl a i ne d tha tthe I J di d nota bus e hi s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng P a s s e ’ s m ot i on f

ora c ont i nua nc e be c a us e : ( 1) the unappr ove d s e c ond pe t i t i on f or an I- 13 0 v i sai n the i nst antca se w as no tan adequat e bas i s f or a c on t i nu ance , e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ghtof

the pr e vi ous l y de ni e d vi s a pe t i t i on; a nd ( 2) the B I A ’ s pr i or d e c is io n in G a r c ia d id n o t e s tab lis h a n “in f le x ib le ru le ” r e q u ir in g I J s in a ll c a s e s to c o n tin u e r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s p e n d in g a d ju d ic a tio n o f

r e la te d v is a p e titio n s .Passe has attached to his appe llate brief (1) a memorandum supportinghis father ’s 4 motion for a continuanc e of his removal proce eding s, filed March 16, 2005; and (2) a notice of hearing in removal proc eeding s, ref lectingthat his father

has sche duled a “ Master I ndividual hearing”before an IJin May 2006. 5 P as se ar g u es o n ap p ea l th at th e I J a b u se d h is d iscr etio n in d en yin g P as se ’s m o ti o n fo r a co n ti n u an ce o f h is re m o v al p ro ce ed in g s. R elyin g o n th e B IA ’s deci si on s i n In re G ar ci a a nd In re V el ar de-P ac heco, 23 I & N D ec . 25 3 (B IA 20 02 ), and o n thi s C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n B ul l v. I. N . S . , 79 0 F . 2d 86 9 (11 th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) , P a s s e s p e c if

ic a lly c o n te n d s th a t “it h a s lo n g b e e n th e p o lic y o f th e [ I N S ] to al l ow qu al i fi ed benefi ci ar i es t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t at es pend i ng fi nal adj ud i ca t i on of thei r pet i t i on s a nd appl i ca t i on s f or adj ustm entof st atus, ” a nd that he and h i s f

am i l y s ho ul d h ave had the op po rtun i ty t o p re se ntal l of hi s e vi dence th r o u g h th e s e c o n d I - 1 3 0 p e titio n . P a s s e a s s e r ts th a t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n is e v id e n t f r o m d o c u m e n ts h e h a s a tta c h e d to h is ap p e lla te b r ie f , w h ic h h e a s s e r ts show thathi s f

ather w as grant ed a c on t i nu ance of hi s r em ov al proceedi ng s bas ed on thi s s am e I -130 pet i t i on . P as se al so cont ends thata c on t i nu ance w as w arra nt ed 4 because, despi t e thatthe fi rs tI- 13 0 p et i t i on had b ee n d eni ed and n o app ea l had b e e n ta k e n f

r o m th a t d e n ia l, th e s e c o n d p e titio n f o ra n I - 1 3 0 v is a w o u ld b e g r a n te d . A s aprel i m i nary m att er , w e a re “ ob l i gat ed t o i nq ui re i nt o subj ec t -m att er ju risd icti o n su a s p o n te w h en ev eritm ay b e lac k in g .” C h ac o n -B o tero v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n. , 427 F . 3d 954, 956 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ N otw i ths t a ndi ng6

a n y o th e rp r o v is io n o f

la w . . . n o c o u r t s h a ll h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w . . . a n y . . . d e c is io n o ra c tio n o f

th e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l o rth e S e c r e ta r y o f H o m e la n d S e c u r ity the a uthor i ty f

orw hi c h i s s pe c i f

i e d unde rthi s s ubc hapt e rt o be i n the di s c r e t i on of th e Att o r n e y Ge n e r a l o rth e S e c r e t a r y o f Ho m e l a n d S e c u r i ty . ” I NA § 2 42 (a )( 2)(B )( i i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( B )( i i ). W e, ho w ever , have det erm i ned tha t§ 1252( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) pr e c l ude s ourr e vi e w of di s c r e t i ona r y de c i s i ons of the A tt or ne y G e ne r a l i n onl y the s pe c i f i c c i r c um s t a nc e s w he r e the de c i s i on ora c t i on of th e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l is s p e c if ie d in th is s u b c h ap te r , a n d th a t th e e x p r e s s a u th o r ity o f a n I J to g r a n t o rd e n y a m o tio n to c o n tin u e a h e a r in g is n o t c o n ta in e d in th is su b ch ap t er. Z afar v . U . S . A tt ’ y G en . , 4 2 6 F . 3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, w e c on cl ud ed i n Z af

arthatw e had j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew an IJ ’ s di sc re t i on ary d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . I d . a t1 3 3 4 - 3 5 . S i m i l a r l y , we c o n c lu d e th a t w e h a v e s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n to d e n y P a s s e ’s m o tio n f

o ra c o n tin u a n c e p e n d in g r e s o lu tio n o f h is v is a p r o c e e d in g s . T he 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 o rg o o d c a u s e s h o w n .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 9 . T h e g r a n t o f a c o n tin u a n c e is w ith in the I J ’ s “ br oa d di s c r e t i on. ” Z a f a r , 426 F . 3d a t1335. “ J udi c i a l r e vi e w of de ni a l s of di s c r e t i ona r y r e l i e f

i nc i de ntt o [ r e m ova l ] pr oc e e di ngs . . . i s l i m i t e d t o de t e r m i ni ng

‘ w he the rthe r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve di s c r e t i on a nd w he the rthe m a tt e rof e xe r c i s e ha s be e n a rbi tr a r y orc apr i c i ous . ’ ” G a r c i a - M i rv. S m i th, 766In responseto cer tain amendments to the I

NA in 1986 and 1990, whic h were aimed at 5 discourag ing f

raudulent marriag es for

immigration purposes, Garcia wa s modified in 1992 by the B IA’s dec ision in Arthur, whereby Garcia’ s presumption in favor of a continuanc e for consideration of applications for adjustment of status based upon pendingvisa petitions now does not apply

to visa petitions based on marriag es that were entere d into following the commencement of removal proce eding s ag ainst the petitioners. See Arthur, 20 I & NDec . at 479. In this case, however, thesecond petition that was pending a t the time the IJdenied Passe a continuancewas ba sed on a ma rriag e that occurre d prior to commenc ement of removal proce eding s ag ainst him. Thus, Arthur’s modification of G arc ia is not applicable. 7 F . 2d 1478, 1490 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on om i tt e d) ( r e vi e w i ng de ni a l s of m ot i ons t o r e ope n) . I nde e d, i n di s c us s i ng a na l ogous de ni a l s of m ot i ons t o r e ope n, th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s e x p la in e d th a t m o tio n s to r e o p e n a r e d is f a v o r e d , e s p e c ia lly i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , be c a us e , a s a ge ne r a l m a tt e r , “ e ve r y de l a y w or ks t o the advant age of the [r em ov abl e] al i en w ho w i shes m er el y t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s . ” I . N . S . v. D ohe r ty , 502 U . S . 314, 323, 112 S . C t . 719, 724- 25, 116 L . E d. 2d 8 2 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . I n G a r c i a , the B I A s e tf or th a n e xc e pt i on t o the ge ne r a l rul e tha tde por t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs ne e d notbe c ont i nue d, orr e ope ne d f ol l ow i ng a n or de rof

de por t a t i on, w here : (1) there w as pend i ng an i m m i grantvi sapet i t i on , fi l ed on the al i en’ s behal f, a l ong w i th a n a dj us tm e ntof s t a tus appl i c a t i on; a nd ( 2) the vi s a pe t i t i on a nd the s t a tu s - a d j u s tm e n tap p l i c a t i o n we r e “ p r i m a f a c i e ” ap p r o v a b l e . S e e Ga r c i a , 1 6 I & N D e c . a t 6 5 6 - 5 7 . T h e B I A , h o w e v e r , c a u tio n e d in G a r c ia : 5 W e d o n o t in te n d , b y o u rh o ld in g , to e s tab lis h a n in f le x ib le ru le r e qui r i ng the [ I J ] i n a l l c a s e s t o c ont i nue the de por t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs atthe i ni t i al hear i ng or t o rem and . . . . Itcl ea rl y w ou l d n otbe an abuse of di sc re t i on for the [I J] t o sum m ar i l y deny are qu es tfor a8

c o n tin u a n c e . . . u p o n h is d e te r m in a tio n th a t th e v is a p e titio n is f r i vol ous ortha tthe a dj us tm e ntappl i c a t i on w oul d be de ni e d on s t a tut or y gr ounds ori n the e xe r c i s e of di s c r e t i on notw i ths t a ndi ng the appr ova l of

the [ vi s a ] pe t i t i on. S e e i d. a t657. S i m i l a r l y , i n I n r e V e l a r do- P a c he c o, a nothe rB I A de c i s i on r e l i e d on by P a s s e , the B I A c l a r i f i e d tha tI J s w e r e notr e qui r e d “ t o r e ope n pr oc e e di ngs p e n d in g a d

ju d ic a tio n o f

a n I - 1 3 0 v is a p e titio n in e v e r y c a s e ,” a n d th a t th e y s till coul d d eny s uch m ot i on s i f they det erm i ned t hata r es po nd ent ’ s vi sapet i t i on w as fr i vo l ou s or thatadj ustm entw ou l d b e deni ed i n any event , ei ther on st atut ory grou nd s or i n the exerc i se of di sc re t i on . S ee In re V el ar do -P ac heco, 23 I & N D ec . a t257. C i t i ng t o G ar ci a, w e di sc usse d i n B ul l thatthe no rm al procedure, w here a pe t i t i on a nd a dj us tm e ntappl i c a t i on ha d be e n a c c e pt e d f orpr oc e s s i ng pr i ort o the is s u a n c e o f

a n O r d e rto S h o w C a u s e , w a s to h o ld a n a d ju s tm e n t ap p lic a tio n in a be y a nc e pe ndi ng f

i na l a dj udi c a t i on of

the vi s a pe t i t i on. S e e B ul l , 790 F . 2d a t871. W e , how e ve r , a l s o e xpl i c i t l y not e d the B I A ’ s c a ut i on i n G a r c i a tha ti tdi d not i nt e nd t o c r e a t e a n “ i nf

l e xi bl e rul e r e qui r i ng [ I J s ] i n a l l c a s e s t o c ont i nue the depo rt at i on proceedi ng s. ” S ee i d. at87 2. T hu s, w e e xp l ai ned t hatthe IJ ’ s deni al o f a re q u es t fo r a co n ti n u an ce b as ed u p o n th e I J’s c o n clu sio n th at th e p etit io n er ’s gui l ty pl e a m a de hi m s t a tut or i l y i ne l i gi bl e f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus w oul d notha ve b e e n a n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n w e r e th a t le g a l c o n c lu s io n c o r r e c t. S e e id .Cert ain aliens wh o a reoth e rwiseine lig ibl eto adju st the ir te mpo ra ry re side nt s tatusin 6 the United States are per

mitted to pay

a penalty feefor adjusting their status to that of a “per manent re sident” and to beconsidere d “grandf athered” into the United States if heis the “bene ficiar

y” of a n application for

labor c ertification that was properly filed by April 20, 2001, and that wa s “approvable when filed.” SeeI NA § 245(i)( 1), 8 C.F.R. § 245.10(a)(1) (i)(B ). “Approvable when filed mea ns that, as of the date of the f iling,” theapplication for labor c e rtif ic atio n w a s “prop e rly

fi le d, meritoriou s in

fac t, a nd no n- frivo lou s . . . .”Se e8 C. F .R. § 245.10(a) (3). Onc e the Attorney General re ceive s the application for adjustment of status and the appropriate f

ee, he“may” adjust the status if the alien is “elig ible to rec eive a n immigra

nt vis a and is admi ssible ,”and

“ an immigra

nt v isa is imme diate ly

availa bleto t healien at th etim e the application is filed.” See I NA § 245(i)( 2), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2). An immigra nt visa, however, ca

nnot be issued to the alien until the labor c ertification is approved. See I NA § 203(b)( 3)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (5). 9 N e ve r the l e s s , be c a us e the I J ’ s de ni a l w a s ba s e d on a n i nc or r e c tl e ga l c onc l us i on, a nd be c a us e ne i the rthe I J , northe B I A i n a f f i r m i ng the I J ’ s de ni a l of the c o n tin u a n c e , d is c u s s e d a n y a lte r n a tiv e r e a s o n s f o rth is d e n ia l, w e c o n c lu d e d in B u ll th a t a n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n h a d o c c u r r e d . S e e id . a t 8 7 2 - 7 3 . M o strecen t l y, i n Z afar, w e ex am i n ed i n an an al o g o u s si tu at i o n w h eth er IJs a b u s e d th e ird is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n s f o rc o n tin u a n c e s to a w a it d e c is io n s in th e irp e n d in g r e q u e s ts f o rlab o rc e r tif

ic a tio n s w h e n th e p e titio n e r s o n ly of f e r e d the “ s pe c ul a t i ve ” pos s i bi l i ty tha t , a ts om e poi nti n the f utur e the y m i ght r e c e i ve l a borc e r t i f

i c a t i on. S e e Z a f

a r , 426 F . 3d a t1335- 36. W e e xpl a i ne d tha tthe 6 pe t i t i one r s c oul d notha ve f i l e d a n “ appr ova bl e ” vi s a pe t i t i on w i thoutthe l a bor c e r t i f i c a t i on a nd, thus , ha d f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe y ha d a vi s a pe t i t i on “im m e d ia te ly a v a ilab le ” to th e m a n d th a t th e y w e r e e lig ib le f o ra d ju s tm e n t to p erm an en tresi d en tst atu s. S ee i d . at1 3 3 6 . W e, th erefo re, co n cl u d ed th atth e IJsTo thee xtent Pa sseis a rguingon a pp e al th at th eIJ abu se d h is discretio n b e c a us e 7 Passe’s father wa s grante d a continuanc e of his removal proce eding s based on the pending I -130 pe tition in t hisc a se , a

nd heha s attac he d tohisbrie f documentatio n th at hec laims su pp or ts this 10 d id n o t ab u s e th e ird is c r e tio n in d e n y in g th e p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n s to c o n tin u e th e ir r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . S e e i d. U nl i ke the fa ct s i n B ul l , i n d enyi ng P as se ’ s m ot i on for acont i nu ance , the IJ d i d n o trel y o n an i n co rrectl eg al co n cl u si o n ; i n st ead , th e IJ ex p l ai n ed th atP asse w a s r e l y i ng on a s e c ond I - 130 vi s a pe t i t i on, tha tthe f i r s tpe t i t i on ha d be e n de ni e d, an d th atth e d en i al o f th i s fi rstp et i t i o n h ad n o tb een ap p eal ed . T h e IJ al so ex p l ai n ed th at , i f h e ex erci sed h i s d i scret i o n i n g ran t i n g co n t i n u an ces u n d er th ese f a c ts , p e titio n e r s c o u ld c o n tin u e r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s in d e f in ite ly b y r e p e a te d ly f i l i ng pe t i t i ons f

orI - 130 vi s a s . S i m i l a r l y , the B I A di s c us s e d tha tthe pe ndi ng u n ap p r o v e d s e c o n d p e titio n f o ra n I - 1 3 0 v is a in th is c a s e w a s n o t a n a d e q u a te b a s is f o ra c o n tin u a n c e , e s p e c ia lly in lig h t o f th e p r e v io u s ly d e n ie d v is a p e titio n . I nde e d, P a s s e c onc e de d dur i ng hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ng tha tthe f i r s tI - 130 pet i t i on had b ee n d eni ed. M oreover, al tho ug h P as se as se rt ed i n h i s m ot i on for a c o n tin u a n c e th a t h is s te p - m o th e rh a d in c lu d e d a d d itio n a l s u p p o r tin g e v id e n c e in th e seco n d I-1 3 0 p et i t i o n , h e d i d n o tex p l ai n w h atth i s ev i d en ce i n cl u d ed . T h u s, si m i l art o the fa ct s i n Z af ar , P as se on l y off

er ed the “ spec ul at i ve” possi bi l i ty that , at s om e poi nti n the f

utur e , the s e c ond I - 130 vi s a appl i c a t i on m i ghtbe appr ove d a nd h e m ig h t r e c e iv e a d

ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . S e e Z a f

a r , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 5 - 3 6 . 7argument, we may not consider evidencethat was not par t of the administrative re cord, se e Al Na jja r v . A sh c ro ft , 2 57 F .3 d 1 26 2, 12 78 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 1) (h oldingthat w e“ c ann ot eng ag ein fac t-findingon appeal, nor may we we igh evidencethat was not previously considere d below”) . 11 A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e I J ’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t P a s s e f a ile d to s h o w “g o o d c a u s e ” f

o ra c o n tin u a n c e a n d , th u s , h is d e c is io n n o t to e x e r c is e h is di sc re t i on i n g ra nt i ng a c on t i nu ance , w as no t“ arbi tra ry or capri ci ou s. ” S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 29; s e e a l s o G a r c i a - M i r , 766 F . 2d a t1490. W e , the r e f or e , de ny P a s s e ’ s 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.