Attor ne y Ge ne ra l E ri c 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 * this case pur suant to Rule 43(c)( 2) of the F eder al Rules of Appe llate Proce dure. 1 08-3059 -ag Dom i n gu ez-Vi d a l v. Hold er B IA A 78- 397- 126 

### UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT 

## SUM M AR Y O RD ER

RULING S B Y SUM M ARY O RDER D O NO T HAVE PRECEDENTI AL EFFECT. CI TATION TO SUM M A R Y O RDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 20 07 , IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED B Y FEDERAL RULE O F APPELLATE PROC EDURE 32.1 AND THIS CO URT’S LOCA L RULE 32 .1. 1. W HEN CITING A SUM M ARY O RDER I N A D OCUMENT FILED W ITH TH IS COUR T, A PARTY M UST CITE EI THER TH E FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTR ONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATI ON “S U M M A R Y OR

DER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMM ARY O RDER MUST SERVE A CO PY OF IT ON ANY PART Y NO T REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated te rm o f t h e Un ited States Court of Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, held at the Daniel P. Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 11 day of January , two thousand eleve n. th PRES ENT: AMAL YA L . KEARSE,

RA L PH K . WI

NT ER, P E T E R W
. H A LL, Cir c uit J ud ge s.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --x E D G A R J A V IE R D O M IN G U E Z
- V ID A L, Petitioner , -v.- No. 08-3059-a g ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY G E N E RA L, * Respondent
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -x APP EA RI

NGF OR PET I TI ON ER: Rob e rt C. R os s, Wes t H a ve n, Conne c tic ut.2

APP EA RI

NGF OR RES PON DENT : R. A le xan de r G or ing , T ri a l A tto rn e y (T ony Wes t, As sis tant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, K e ithI . M c Ma

nu s, Senior L itigation Counsel, on the brief ), Off ice of I mmigration L itigation, Civil Divisi on, United States Depa

rtment of Just ice, Washing ton, D.C. UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON of this petition for re view of an orde r of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) , it is hereby ORDERED, AD J UDGED , AND DE CREED that the petition for re view is GRANTED. Petitioner Edg ar Javier Doming uez-Vidal, a native and citizen of P eru, petitions for review
o f aM ay 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , d ec i s i o n o f t h e BI A d i s m i s s i n g h i s ap p ea l fr o m t h e o rd er o f a ni m m i gra t i o nj u d ge (“I J ”): (1) den

y in g D o mi n g u ez-Vidal’s motion for a

continuance of proc eeding s so that he could see k adjustment of status based on e mploy ment cer tification; and

( 2 ) o r d e r in g

D o mi ng uez-Vidal re moved to Peru. We assume the pa rties’ familiarity with the underly ing fac ts, pr ocedur al history of the c ase, and the issues ra ised on petition for re view. We r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n ti nu an c e “ u n d e r

a h igh ly d e f e r e n ti a l s ta

n d ar d o f a b u s e of discretion.” Morgan v. Gonzale s , 445 F.3d 549, 551 ( 2d Cir. 2006). Thus, the a g ency ’s denial of a continuanc e must be upheld if it is “wit hin the rang e of pe rmissible decisions,” with “wide latitude” g rante d to the I J to manag e his own ca lendar
. Id. at 551-52. I n Matter of Hashmi , the B I A held that, in deter mining whe ther to g rant a motion for a continuance , an I J should consider: (1 ) t he DH S r e sp on se to the mot ion ; (2) wh e the r the un de rl ying vis a pe tit ion is p ri ma fa c ie a pp ro va ble ; ( 3) the res po nd e nt’ s st a tut or y e lig ibi lity

fo r a dju stm e nt o f s tatus ; (4 ) whe the r t

he re sp on de nt’ s app lic a tio n for a dju stm e nt me ri ts a f a vo ra ble e xer c ise of dis c re tio n; a

nd (5 ) t he re a so n f

or the c on tin

ua nc e and oth e r p ro c e dura l f

a c tor s.3

2 4 I
. & N
. D e c . 7 8 5 , 7 9 0 ( B I A 2 0 0 9 )
. Su b s e qu e n tl y , th e B I A e xp la in e d th a t, in th e p arti c u la

r c o n te xt of motions to continue proce eding s to await adjudication of employ ment-base d adjustment of status petitions, the I J should w eig h the Hashmi fac tors, but “the focus of the i nquiry is the likelihood of
succe ss on the adjustment application.” Matter of Rajah , 25 I . & N . Dec . 127, 130 (B I A 2009). The I J and B I A decisions in the present case predate t he B I A’s enunc iation of the re levant standards in Hashmiand Rajah , a nd the a g e nc y

thu s h a s n ot had

the op po rt

un ity to a pp ly tho se standards to the pr esent c ase. The Gover nment argues that we may never theless deny the petition for r eview beca

use t he I J based his dec ision on the present unavailability of a visa numbe r and the
un c e rt a int y a s to wh e n a

vis a numbe r m ig ht b e c ome a va ila ble
. We dis a g re e . Th e I J unq ue sti on a bly
w a s p e r mi tt e d to c o n s id e r , a s o n e f a c to r in h is an a ly s is , th e p o te n ti a ll y lo n g w a it f o r Doming u e zVidal’s priority

date to bec ome cur

rent. See R ajah , 25 I . & N . Dec . at 136 (“ A re spondent who has
a pr im a fa c ie approva

ble I -140 and adjustment application may not be able to showg ood cause for a continuanc e beca

use visa availability is too remote.” ) Howeve r, we cannot be cer tain that either the I J or the BIA would rea ch the same re sult after Rajah , beca use neither

the I J nor the B I A place d the “ fo c us of

the inq uir y ” on “ the lik e lih oo d of

su c c e ss o n th e a dju stm e nt a pp lic a tio n” a s Rajah now require s. 25 I . & N . Dec . at 130. Th e Go ve rnme nt d oe s n ot d isp ute t hat Do min g ue z-V ida l ha s a n a pp ro ve d I -1 40 and

va lid
e mpl oy me nt ce rt if

ic a tio n. F ur

the rm or e , we no te that th e mos t r e c e nt V isa B ull e tin fr om t he State De pa rtme nt s e ts the c ur

re nt p ri or ity

date fo r D omi ngue z-V ida l’ s c la ss of wo rk a t Apr il 2 2, 20 03 , le ss th an f iv e mo n th s b e f

o r e D o mi n g u e z- V id a l’ s o w n p r io r it y d a te o f Se p te mb e r 1 7, 2003. See Vi sa Bulletin for J anuar

y 2011, available at

htt p:/ /tr a ve l.s tate .g ov/vi sa

/bu lle tin/bu lle tin

_5 21 2. htm l. Re mand is the re fo re no t fut ile , as the a g e nc y may we ll co nc lud e that D omi ngue z-V ida l is lik e ly to4

be elig ible for adjustment of status in the near future. We may not, and do not, instruct the ag ency how to apply

the Rajah sta

nd ard to t his c a se . H ow e ve r, we c on c lud e , a s w e have in s imi lar c a se s, that th e a g e nc y

mus t c on sid e r the c on tin ua nc e mot ion in a c c or da

nc e wi th the sta

nd ard se t f or th i n Rajah
. See, e .g., Rana v. Holde r , 363 Fe d. Appx. 779, 781 (2d Ci r. 2010) ( summary order ). For the fore g oing rea sons, we GRAN T the petition for re view, VACATE the B I A’s orde r, and REMAND the case to the BIA for f urther pr ocee dings not inconsistent with this summary order
. We DI SMI SS Domi ng uez-Vidal’s pe nding motion for a stay of re moval as MOOT.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk