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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** oral ar gu m ent . S ee F ed R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H on orabl e W i l l i am T . H art , D i stri ctJudg e f or the N orthern ** * D i s tr i c tof

I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

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 FE LI SB ER TO HERNAN DEZ DUA RT E, 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. 06- 71315 A ge nc y N o. A 075- 732- 310 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 S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r6, 2009 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: G O U L D and B E A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and H A R T , D i stri ctJudg e. *** In 19 99 , pet i t i on erF el i sbert o H ernand ez D uart e e nt er ed the U ni t ed S t at es w i thouti ns pe c t i on. I n 2000, pe t i t i one rappl i e d f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of



# FI LED DE C 01 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

r e m ova l . I n S e pt e m be r2003, pe t i t i one rappe a r e d a tar e m ova l he a r i ng a nd a dm i tt e d he w a s s ubj e c tt o r e m ova l . H e s t a t e d he i ns t e a d w oul d appl y f or c a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l a nd, a l t e rna t i ve l y , vol unt a ry de pa r tur e . I n M a r c h 2004, he f ile d h is ap p lic a tio n f

o rc a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. I n A pr i l 2001, pe t i t i one r ’ s e m pl oy e rha d s ubm i tt e d a n appl i c a t i on f oral abor c e r t i f i c a t i on. I n J ul y 2001, the C a l i f orni aE m pl oy m e ntD e ve l opm e ntD e pa r tm e nt s e ntal e tt e rs t a t i ng the pr oc e s s i ng of the l aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on appl i c a t i on w oul d be de l a y e d due t o al a r ge vol um e of pe ndi ng c a s e s . O n D e c e m be r27, 2004, p e t i t i o n e r ’ s n e w e m p l o y e rs u b m i tt e d an e w ap p l i c a t i o n f o rl ab o rc e r t i f

i c a t i o n . On J a nua ry 3, 2005, pe t i t i one rm ove d t o c ont i nue the he a r i ng on hi s c a nc e l l a t i on appl i ca t i on thatw as se tfor F ebruary7, 20 05 . O ne re as on for the cont i nu ance w as t o a l l ow t i m e f

orthe l aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on appl i c a t i on. O n J a nua ry 7, 2005, the I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ( “I J ” ) d e n ie d th e m o tio n f o rac o n tin u a n c e b e c au s e s h e w o u ld no tal l ow the ca se t o b e pendi ng on her c al endar for an exp ec t ed tw o o r m ore y ea rs thatw ou l d b e nec es sa ryt o p roce ss the l abor cert i fi ca t i on and any rel at ed adj ustm entof st atus. F ol l ow i ng the F ebruary20 05 hear i ng , the IJdeni ed ca ncel l at i on of re m ov al on the grou nd thatnei ther of pet i t i on er ’ s tw o U ni t ed S t at es ci t i ze n chi l dren w ou l d suffe r a n except i on al and extre m el y unu sual hardshi p i f they3

r e tu rn e d to M e x ic o w ith p e titio n e r . See 8 U . S . C . § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( D ) . T he B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i rm e d w i thoutopi ni on. P e titio n e rc o n te n d s th e I J ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t h e d id n o t s a tis f y th e h a r d s h ip r e qui r e m e ntw a s avi ol a t i on of l a w i n tha tthe I J di d notc um ul a t i ve l y c ons i de rthe fa ct ors r equi re d b y B IA prec edent . F urther, he cont ends the deni al of a cont i nu ance for hi m t o p ursue l abor cert i fi ca t i on and an adj ustm entof st atus w as both a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on a nd avi ol a t i on of due pr oc e s s . T he gove rnm e nt c ont e nds thi s c our ti s w i thoutj ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe m e r i t s of c a nc e l l a t i on, s pe c i f i c a l l y w he the rpe t i t i one rs a t i s f i e d the ha r ds hi p r e qui r e m e nt . T he gove rnm e nt a l s o c ont e nds tha tde ny i ng ac ont i nua nc e w a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on ordue pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on. S i nc e the B I A a f

f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on w i thoutopi ni on, the de c i s i on of the I J is r e v ie w e d a s th e f

in a l a g e n c y d e c is io n . Sa ndoval-L un a v. Mukasey , 526 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 45 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( per c uri am ). Q uest i on s a s t o app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on ar e r e vi e w e d de no vo . I

d. a t1245- 46. Q ue s t i ons of l a w a r e r e vi e w e d de no vo , b u t“ we d e f e rto th e B I A ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f im m ig r a tio n la w s u n le s s th e in te rp r e ta tio n is cl ar l y c on tra ryt o the pl ai n and se nsi bl e m ea ni ng of the st atut e. ” Me r c a do - Za z u e ta v. H older , 5 8 0 F .3 d 1 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . C l a i m s of

due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i ons a r e r e vi e w e d de no vo . Sandov al-L una , 526 F . 3d4

a t 1 2 4 6 . T h e I J ’s d e n ia l o f ac o n tin u a n c e is r e v ie w e d f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . I

d. ; A hm ed v. H

older , 56 9 F . 3d 10 09 , 10 12 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). A n I J ’ s di s c r e t i ona ry de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe a l i e n ha s nots a t i s f i e d the hardshi p requi re m entfor c ance l l at i on of re m ov al i s notre vi ew abl e by thi s c ou rt e x c e p t a s to c o lo r ab le q u e s tio n s o f la w o rc o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . Mendez- C astro v. Mukasey , 55 2 F . 3d 97 5, 97 8 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T hi s c ou rti s pre sum ed t o l ac k ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e I J ’s h a r d s h ip d e te rm in a tio n u n le s s p e titio n e rm e e ts h is b u r d e n o f

r a is in g ac o lo r ab le q u e s tio n o f la w . I d. Iti s aqu es t i on of l aw w hether th e I J f a ile d to ap p ly ac o n tr o llin g s ta n d a r d g o v e rn in g ale g a l d e te rm in a tio n . I d. a t 9 7 9 . H o w e v e r , a r g u in g th a t a n I J ’s h a r d s h ip d e te rm in a tio n is f a c tu a lly i n co n si st en tw i th p ri o r ag en cy h ard sh i p d et erm i n at i o n s “ i s al m o stn ecessaril y a s ubj e c t i ve que s t i on tha tde pe nds on the i de nt i ty a nd the va l ue j udgm e ntof the pers on or ent i ty e xam i ni ng the i ss ue” a nd there fore “ const i tut es an att em ptt o cl oak an abuse of di sc re t i on ar gu m enti n the garb of a quest i on of l aw . ” I d. a t980 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and b ra cket s om i tt ed). P et i t i on ercont ends the IJdi d n otfol l ow the l aw es t abl i shed by the B IA b e c au s e s h e f

a ile d to c o n s id e rth e c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t o f a ll f a c to r s in th e a g g r e g a te . See Men dez-C a stro , 552 F . 3d a t980 ( c i t i ng I n r e G onz alezR e c i nas , 2 3 I . & N . D e c . 4 6 7 , 4 7 2 ( B I A 2 0 0 2 ) ; I n r e Monr e al-A gui naga , 23 I . & N . D e c . 56, 64–655

( B I A 2 0 0 1 ) ) . B u t th e I J d is c u s s e d th e a lle g e d h a r d s h ip f a c to r s , m a n y in r e la tio n to each o th er, an d ex p ressl y st at ed sh e co n si d ered al l fact o rs cu m u l at i v el y. S h e al so c i t e d Monr e al

a nd R e c i nas , both r e l e va nta uthor i t i e s . T hus , no c ol or abl e c l a i m of f a ilu r e to f

o llo w th e la w is r a is e d , c f. Men dez-Ca stro , 552 F . 3d a t980, a nd the h a r d s h ip c la im w ill b e d is m is s e d f o rw a n t o f

ju r is d ic tio n . T hi s c our tha s j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the de ni a l of ac ont i nua nc e f

orabus e of d is c r e tio n , a s w e ll a s f

o ra n y d u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n . Sandov al-L una , 526 F . 3d a t1246. W he the rthe r e w a s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on i s t o be de c i de d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s is a c c o r d in g to th e p a r tic u la rf a c ts a n dc ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e c a s e . A hm ed , 569 F . 3d a t1012. F a c t or s t o c ons i de ri n m a ki ng the de t e rm i na t i on i nc l ude : “ ( 1) the na tur e of the e vi de nc e e xc l ude d a s ar e s ul tof the de ni a l of

the c ont i nua nc e , ( 2) the r e a s onabl e ne s s of the i m m i gr a nt ’ s c onduc t , ( 3) the in c o n v e n ie n c e to th e c o u r t, a n d ( 4 ) th e n u m b e ro f c o n tin u a n c e s p r e v io u s ly grant ed. ” I

d. R e c e nt l y , i n A hm ed , w e h e ld th e r e w a s a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n in denyi ng a c on t i nu ance w hi l e a n app ea l of a deni al of an I- 14 0 v i sapet i t i on w as p e n d in g . I

d. a t1012–14. H e r e , th e I J lik e w is e ab u s e d h e rd is c r e tio n in d e n y in g ac o n tin u a n c e . A s in A hm ed , th e d e n ia l o f

ac o n tin u a n c e p r e c lu d e d p e titio n e r ’s ab ility to s u b m it evi dence of “ vi t al i m po rt ance . ” I d. at10 12 –1 3. A l tho ug h the IJno t ed there w as6

no gu ar ant ee thatpet i t i on erw ou l d rec ei ve l abor cert i fi ca t i on and, i n turn, an a dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus , thi s f

a c tw a s notdi s pos i t i ve i n A hm ed . Se e i d. a t1013 (“ [T ] here i s no g uara nt ee thatA hm ed w ou l d h ave been succ es sf ul i n h i s app ea l [ b u t] th e o u tc o m e o f

th e ap p e a l w a s u n d e n iab ly “im p o r ta n t,” a n d th is w e ig h s in fa v o r o f g ra n ti n g th e c o n ti n u an ce . . . . ”) . A s to th e r ea so n ab len es s o f p etit io n er ’s c onduc t , w e not e w i th s om e c onc e rn tha t , unl i ke i n A hm ed , pe t i t i one r“ appl i e d f or l ab o r cert i fi cat i o n o n l y aft er rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s w ere i n i t i at ed ag ai n st [hi m ] . . . . ” I

d. H ow e ve r , be c aus e pe t i t i one r ’ s f orm e re m pl oy e rf

i l e d f orl abor c e r tif ic a tio n n e a r ly tw o a n d ah a lf y e a r s b e f

o r e th e r e m o v a l h e a r in g w a s h e ld , it do es no tappear the l abor cert i fi ca t i on appl i ca t i on w as fi l ed “ i n an att em ptt o d el ay the [r em ov al ] proceedi ng s. ” I d. I n s te a d , th a t ap p lic a tio n c o u ld n o t b e tim e ly pr oc e s s e d by the s t a t e a ge nc y . A s w e he l d i n A hm ed , pet i t i on erca nn otbe faul t ed f o rd e la y s c au s e d b y a d m in is tr a tiv e a g e n c ie s . I d. a t1013. T hus , a l though pe t i t i one rw a s nota s di l i ge nta s the pe t i t i one ri n A hm ed , pet i t i on er ’ s c on du ctw as no tun re as on abl e. S i gni f i c a nt l y , othe rf

a c t or s f a vor e d ac ont i nua nc e i n thi s c a s e . A s i n A hm ed , the go vernm entdi d n otobj ec tt o a cont i nu ance .

N ordoe s the r e c or d r e f

l e c ta ny s pe c i f

i c i nc onve ni e nc e t o the adm i ni stra t i ve court , as i de fr om the IJ ’ s a nn ou ncem entthat7 s he w a s notke e pi ng thi s on [ he r ] c a l e nda r. . . pe ndi ng [p etit io n er ’s lab o r c er ti fica ti o n ap p li ca ti o n ]. W e have re peat edl y w arned thata myopi c i nsistence u p o n ex p e d itio u s n e s s w ill n o t ju s tify th e de n ia l o f a m e r i tor i ous r e que s t

f orde lay , es peci al l y w here the del ay i m pa i r s the pe t i t i one r ’ s s t a tut ory r i ght s . A n i m m i gr a nt ’ s r i ght t o h av e h i s o r h er case h eard sh o u l d n o tb e sacri fi ced b ecau se of the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s he a vyc a s e l oa d. I d. a t 1 0 1 3

– 1 4 ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ; e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . A l though s he not e d age ne r a l l e gi s l a t i ve c onc e rn tha ti m m i gr a t i on c a s e s be r e s ol ve d e xpe di t i ous l y , the I J di d notc i t e t o a ny pa r t i c ul a ri nc onve ni e nc e t o the court . Inst ea d, she poi nt ed on l y t o the po ss i bi l i ty of the ca se re m ai ni ng on her c a l e nda rf

ora n e xt e nde d pe r i od. T hus , the r e i s nothi ng t o s ugge s ttha tgr a nt i ng the cont i nu ance w ou l d h ave r es ul t ed i n a si gn i fi ca nti ncon veni ence . M o r e o v e r , th is w a s p e titio n e r ’s f ir s t r e q u e s t f

o rac o n tin u a n c e . C

f . A hm ed , 569 F . 3d a t1014 ( “ A c c or di ng t o the e s t i m a t e pr ovi de d by the U . S . C i t i z e ns hi p a nd Im m i grat i on S ervi ce , the process i ng t i m e f or an I- 14 0 app ea l m aybe anyw here fr om ni ne t o tw enty- tw o m on ths. . . . W hi l e a n IJ c anno tbe expect ed t o con t i nu e a ca se i nd ef

i ni t el y pendi ng appeal , a s ec on d con t i nu ance w ou l d n othave been un re as on abl e i n l i gh tof thi s e st i m at e. ”) .S i nce i ti s hel d thatthere w as an abuse of di sc re t i on , i ti s unn ec es sa ry 1 t o co n si d er w h eth er th ere w as a v i o l at i o n o f d u e p ro cess.

W hi l e thi s c a s e w a s pe ndi ng on appe a l , i tappe a r s pe t i t i one r ’ s l abor 2 c e r tif ic a tio n ap p lic a tio n a n d I - 1 4 0 v is aap p lic a tio n w e r e ap p r o v e d . See M a y 20, 20 09 O rder . 8 In l i gh tof these fa ct ors, i tw as an abuse of di sc re t i on t o d eny, sol el y bas ed 1 on the ca se pend i ng on the IJ ’ s c al endar, pet i t i on er ’ s f i rs tre qu es tfor acont i nu ance t o a l l ow t i m e f

orthe pr oc e s s i ng of

hi s pe ndi ng l aborc e r t i f i c a t i on appl i c a t i on, the p r o c e s s in g o f

w h ic h h a d b e e n d e la y e d b y th e p e r tin e n t a d m in is tr a tiv e a g e n c ie s . See A hm ed , 569 F . 3d a t1012–14. O n r e m a nd, the I J s ha l l c ons i de rthe pr e s e nt ci rc um st ance s of pet i t i on er . 2 DI S MI S S E D i n p a r t , GR AN T E D i n p a r t , a n d R E MAND E D.