### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 15, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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- 13947 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 96- 437- 573 A R I F T A N V E E R H A Q U E , P e titio n e r ,
v ersu s U .S . A T T O R N 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 ar c h 15, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A r i f T an v eer H aq u e, a n at i v e an d ci t i zen o f P ak i st an , p et i t i o n s t h i s C o u r t to

r e v i e w t h e f

i n a l o r d e r o f t h e Bo a r d o f I mmi g r a t i o n ( “ BI A ” ) , a f f i r m i ng a nd

a dopt i ng t he de c i s i on of t he I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) nott o g ran t a co nt i nua nc e ofHaque asks us to reinstate his pe riod for voluntary depar ture, which expiredo nJ u l y 24, 1 20 0 5 , p ur s u ant t o th e B IA ’ s d e c i s i o n gr ant i n g a 3 0

- d ay e xt e n s i o n r unn i n g f r o m th e date of

its decision. We cannot grant hi s reque st beca use we lack jurisdiction to do so. Haquedid not file a motion to s tay

prior to expiration of his tim e for voluntary

depar ture. SeeBoc ova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 257, 267- 68 (1st Cir. 2005) (holdingthat “petitioners must file a motion for a stay before the expiration of the period of voluntar y depar ture a llotted by

th e BIA” ( emphasis adde d)). And w e have he ld that we lac k jurisdictional authority to grant an e x tension of the voluntary-depa rture pe ri od . Se e Nk a c oa

ngv. I .N .S. , 8 3 F .3 d 3 53 , 3 57 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 6) . Nka c oa

ngwa s de c ide d prior

to the ef fec tive date of

the I lleg al Immigration Ref o rm an d Immigra

nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), but the a

mendments did not provide us with appellateauthori ty t o gran tor extend voluntary depar ture. Seeg enerall y , I

NA §§ 240B (f) , 242(a) (2)( B) (i), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f ), 1252(a) (2)( B) (i); seealso Boc ova, 412 F .3d 266 (post-I IRIRA) (“ Reinstating a n expired voluntary depar ture pe riod is functionally equivalent to fa shioning a new voluntar

y departure p eriod; doing so wo uld re qu ir e thec ourt

to dic tatebo th t

hele ngth o f t

he pe ri od and the tim e wh e n it w ou ld b e g in to run (thus eff

ectively overriding the Attorney Ge n er al ’s decision). That would be an impermissible circumvention of Congress’s w ill.” (citations omitted)). 2 hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs pe ndi ng hi s r e que s tf or a l a borc e r t i fi cat i o n fr om t he D epar t m entof L abor (“ D O L ”)

. O n app eal, H aq u e argues thatt he di stri ctcourt

e r r e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rc o n tin u a n c e a f

te rh e f ile d a l a b o rc e r tif

ic a tio n w ith
t he D O L , w hi ch w as pend i ng att he t i m e of the re m ov al proceedi ng s. H aque urges 1

u s to r e - e x a m i n e o u r d e c is io n in Z a f a rv . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 2 6 F . 3 d 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ), w hi ch he rec og n izes i s i dent i ca l i n al l m at er i al re spec t s t o h i s c as e. M or e s pe c i f

i c a l l y , he s ugge s t s erro r i n our Z a f a ropi ni on be c a us e w e di d not

a d d r e s s S u b h a n v . A s h c r o f t, 3 8 3 F .3 d 5 9 1 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , in w h ic h th e S e v e n th C i r c ui tr e ve r s e d t he I J ’ s r e m ova l or de ra f t e rt he IJ de ni e d t he pe t i t i one r s ’ m ot i on for a t hi r d c on t i nu a nc e . W e de c l i ne hi s i nv i t a t i on s i nc e , pu r s ua ntt o o urpr i orprec edentrul e, w e m ustfol l ow Z af arand d eny hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew3

“ T he grantof a c on t i nu ance i s w i thi n th e im m i grat i on j ud ges’ broad di s c r e t i on, ” a nd, t he r e f or e , w e r e vi e w de ni a l s of c ont i nua nc e f

ora n a bus e of di sc re t i on . S ee Z af

ar , 42 6 F

. 3d at13 35

. A s w e e xp l ai ned i n Z af ar : S e c t i o 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 e r ta in cl as s of a l i ens w ho w er e ot herw i se i nel i gi bl e t o adj ustt hei r t em p o ra ry r e s i de nt s t a tus i n t he U ni t e d S t a t e s t o pa y a pe na l t y fee fo r ad j us t i ng th eir st atus t o t hatof a ‘ perm anentre si dent ’ and b e c on si dere d
‘ grandfathere d’ i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es , i f he i s t he ‘ benefi ci ar y’ of an a ppl i c a t i on f

orl a borc e r t i f

i c a t i on t ha tw a s pr ope r l y f i l e d b y A pr i l 30, 2 0 0 1 , a n d w a s ‘ a p p r o v a b l e w h e n f i l e d. ’ I N A § 2 4 5 ( i ) ( 1 ) , 8 C. F. R. § 245. 10( a ) ( 1) ( i ) ( B )

. ‘ A ppr ova bl e w he n f i l e d m e a ns t ha t , a s of

t he d a te o f t h e f

ilin g ,’ th e a p p lic a tio n f

o rla b o rc e r tif

ic a tio n w a s ‘p r o p e r ly f i l e d , me r i t o r i o u s i n f a c t , a n d n o n - f

r i v o l o u s . . . ’ 8 C. F. R. § 2 4 5. 10( a ) ( 3)

. O nc e t he A t t or ne y G e ne r a l r e c e i ve s t he a ppl i c a t i on f ora dj us t m e ntof

s t a tus an d t h e a ppr opr i a t e f e e , he ‘ m a y ’ a dj us tt he s ta tu s if t h 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 i s s i bl e , ’ 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 a bl e t o t he a l i e n a tt h e t i m e t he a p p l i c a t i o n i s f i l e d

. ’ I N A 2 4 5 ( i ) ( 2 ) , 8 U
. S. C. § 1 2 5 5 ( i ) ( 2)

. A n i m m i gr a ntvi s a c a nnot , how e ve r , be i s s ue d t o t he a lie n u n til th e l a b o r c e r tif ic a tio n is a p 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 ( e m pha s i s i n t he or i gi na l )

. W e f ur t he rhe l d t ha tbe c a us e t he p et i t i o n e r s w e r e notc e r t a i n t o r e c e i ve a l a borc e r t i f i c a t i on, t he y c oul d not de m ons t r a t e “ t ha tt he y ha d a vi s a pe t i t i on i m m e di a t e l y a va i l a bl e t o t he m , ” a nd,
t he r e f or e , t he I J di d not a bus e hi s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng t he i r m ot i o n s t o co n t i nue th e irr e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . I d . a t 1 3 3 6

. H e r e , l i k e t h e p e t i t i o n e ri n Za f a r , H a q u e w a s n o tc e r t a i n t o r e c e i v e a l a bor

c e r t i f i c a t e a tt he t i m e of

hi s r e que s tf

or a c ont i nua nc e . A c c or di ng t o ourMoreove r, eve n if we c ould rec onsider Z afa r, which it is plain wecannot, Ha que’s reliance 2 on the Subhan dec ision is m isplaced a s that case is readily distinguishable. In Subhan, the IJgrante d the petitioners two continuanc es in an attempt to allow thependingcer tification to be proc essed by the Depa rtment of L abor, but a fter the second continuance expired, the IJsummarily denied a third. Subhan, 383 F.3d at 593. The Seventh Circuit h el d th at b ec ause theIJg ave a bsolutely no rea son fo r h is d e nial, i t w a s er

ro ne ou s. I d. at 595. We obs e rv e that in Ha qu e ’s c a se , the IJ did e xpla in h is re a so nin gfo r t

hede nial, c ho os ingto f

oll ow the “ g e ne ral rul e . . . th at you do no t c ontin

uec a se s to a llo w f or ms o f re lie f whic h a

reno t p rese ntly

mature to b e c omeso .”Th e IJ’s r uli ngwa s e nti re ly consistent with our Z afa

r dec ision, which we a

re bound to follow. 4 w el l -e st abl i shed pri or-pre ce dent rul e, “ [o] nl y the S up re m e C ou rtor t hi s C ou rt

s i t t i ng e n ba nc c a n j udi c i a l l y ove r r i de a p ri o r pa ne l de c i s i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W r i ght , 392 F

. 3d 1269, 1280 (1 1t h C i r . 2004) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons
o m itte d ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 7 5 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; W a lk e rv . S o u th e r n C o . S e r v ., I n c ., 2 7 9 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 3

- 9 4 ( 1 1 t h C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s ta tin g “th e la w o f th is c ir c u it is ‘e m p h a tic ’ th a t o n ly th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o rth is c o u r t s ittin g e n b a n c c a n ju d i c ia lly

o v e r r u l e a p r i o r p a n e l d e c i s i o n . ” ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) )

. T h u s , p u r s u a n tt o Z a f a r , we fi nd no abuse of di sc re t i on i n t he IJ ’ s deni al of H aque’ s m ot i on for a cont i nu ance , pe ndi ng t h e i ssu an ce of a l a borc e r t i f

i c a t i on. A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny t he pe t i t i on

2 f o rr e v i e w. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.