FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JAN 10, 2008 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. 07- 12587 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 96- 114- 230 M O H A M M E D H U M A Y U N K A B I R , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 10, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A n Im m i grat i on Judg e ( “ IJ ”) deni ed pet i t i on er ’ s m ot i on t o con t i nu e r em ov alAlthough theGover nment argues that an inter veningreje ction of petitioner’ s I -140 1 ag ency a pp e al rendersthi s a

pp e al mo ot, wec on c ludeoth erwiseand there fo readd

re ss petitioner’s c laims. 2 p r o c e e d in g s . P e titio n e rap p e a le d th e d e c is io n to th 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 ” ) , a nd i ta f

f i rm e d. P e t i t i one rnow s e e ks ourr e vi e w of the B I A ’ s de c i s i on. P e titio n e rc o n te n d s th a t th e I J ab u s e d h e rd is c r e tio n w h e n s h e d e n ie d h is m ot i on f orac ont i nua nc e be c aus e he w a s s t a tut or i l y e l i gi bl e f ora n a dj us tm e ntof i m m i g rat i o n st atu s, t o -w i t : (1 ) h e h ad an ap p ro v ed l ab o r cert i fi cat i o n , (2 ) a v i sa nu m ber w as i m m edi at el y a vai l abl e t o h i m ; and (3) hi s I -140 vi sapet i t i on w as pend i ng because a l tho ug h the D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty ( “ D H S ”) had d e n ie d it, h e w a s ap p e a lin g th a t d e n ia l. P e titio n e ra ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e I J , in de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f

orac ont i nua nc e , de pr i ve d hi m of due pr oc e s s of

l a w by not addres si ng al l of hi s a vai l abl e f orm s of r el i ef

. 1 I.

“ W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der acl ai m ra i se d i n a pet i t i on for r evi ew un l es s the pet i t i on erhas e xh aust ed hi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es w i th res pect there t o. ” A m ay a- A rtun du aga v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 3 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 50 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ; s e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( s ta tin g th e e x h au s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t ap p lic ab le to i m m i g rat i o n cases). A l th o u g h ex h au st i o n m ay n o tap p l y t o al l d u e p ro cess cl ai m s, i tappl i es t o cl ai m s f

or w hi ch the B IA ca n p rovi de a r em edy. A m ay a- A rtun du aga, 4 6 3 F . 3 d at1 2 5 1 . T h u s, a p et i t i o n er m u stex h au sth i s “ p ro ced u ral d u e p ro cess3

c l a i m s , a s w e l l a s pr oc e dur a l e rr or s a r gue d i n due pr oc e s s t e rm s . ” I d. P e titio n e rf

a ile d to e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s in th is c a s e . A l th o u g h th e B IA co u l d h av e p ro v i d ed h i m w i th a rem ed y fo r h i s d u e p ro cess c la im , h e d id n o t p r e s e n t th e c la im to th e B I A in e ith e rh is n o tic e o f ap p e a l o rh is br i e f . I n s hor t , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rpe t i t i one r ’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m a nd thus di s m i s s thi s pa r tof hi s pe t i t i on. II . A n I J “ ma y g r a n tamo t i o n f o rc o n t i n u a n c e f

o rg o o d c au s e s h o w n . ” 8 C. F. R. § 1 00 3. 29 . “ T he grantof a c on t i nu ance i s w i thi n the IJ [’ s] broad d i sc re t i on . ” Z af arv. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 1 F . 3d 13 57 , 13 62 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). W e there fore re vi ew an IJ ’ s dec i si on denyi ng a c on t i nu ance for abu se of di sc re t i on . H as w anee v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 7 1 F .3 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . I n g e n e r a l, a n a lie n p r e s e n t in th e U n ite d S ta te s m a y ap p ly to a d ju s t h is s t a tus t o tha tof

a n a l i e n l a w f

ul l y a dm i tt e d f

orpe rm a ne ntr e s i de nc e . I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) § 245, 8 U . S . C . § 1255. H ow e ve r , a n a l i e n w ho b e c a m e ille g a l b y o v e r s ta y in g h is v is ao rb y a c c e p tin g u n au th o r iz e d e m p lo y m e n t is g e n e r a l l y b a rr e d f

r o m ap p l y i n g f

o ra n a d j u s tme n to f

s t a tu s . I N A § 2 4 5 ( c ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 25 5(c) . D es pi t e thatbar, an i l l egal al i en w ho (1) i s the benefi ci ary of a n appl i c a t i on f

oral aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on, unde r8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 5) ( A ) , f i l e d pur s ua nt t o D e pa r tm e ntof

L abor( “ D O L ” ) r e gul a t i ons , a nd ( 2) i s phy s i c a l l y pr e s e nti n the4

U ni t e d S t a t e s on D e c e m be r21, 2000, m a y appl y t o the A tt orne y G e ne r a l f orthe a dj us tm e ntof

hi s s t a tus t o tha tof

a n a l i e n l a w f

ul l y a dm i tt e d f

orpe rm a ne nt re si dence. IN A § 2 45 (i )( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 5(i )( 1). T ha tha vi ng be e n s a i d, “ [ t ] he m e r e f i l i ng of al aborc e r t i f

i c a t e appl i c a t i on w i th the D O L do es no tm ake a n al i en el i gi bl e f or adj ustm entof st atus un der § 1 25 5(i ). ” Z af

ar , 46 1 F . 3d at13 63 (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). T w o add i t i on al st atut ory e l i gi bi l i ty r equi re m ent s m ustbe m et . Id. S peci fi ca l l y, the A tt orney G ener al m ayadj ustan al i en’ s s t atus i f: “ (A ) the al i en i s e l i gi bl e t o rec ei ve an i m m i gr a ntvi s aa nd i s a dm i s s i bl e t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s f orpe rm a ne ntr e s i de nc e ; a nd ( B ) a n i m m i gr a ntvi s ai s i m m e di a t e l y a va i l abl e t o the a l i e n a tthe t i m e the appl i ca t i on i s f

i l ed. ” I N A § 2 45 (i )( 2), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 5(i )( 2). A n y e m p lo y e rm a y f

ile a n I - 1 4 0 e m p lo y m e n t- b a s e d v is ap e titio n o n b e h a lf of a n a l i e n. 8 C . F . R . § 204. 5( l ) ( 1) . T he I - 140 pe t i t i on “ m us tbe a c c om pa ni e d by a n i ndi vi dua l l aborc e r t i f i c a t i on f r om the D e pa r tm e ntof

L abor . ” I d. § 204. 5( l ) ( 3) ( i ) . I f

the pe t i t i on i s appr ove d, i tw i l l be r e t a i ne d by the i m m i gr a t i on serv i ce fo r co n si d erat i o n w i th an ap p l i cat i o n fo r p erm an en tresi d en ce, an d a v i sa num be rw i l l be a s s i gne d i f a va i l abl e . 8 C . F . R . §§ 204. 5( n) ( 1) , 245. 1( g) . T he em pl oyerm ayappeal the deni al of an I- 14 0 p et i t i on . 8 C . F . R . §§ 20 4. 5(n)(2). In M er chantv. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 1 F . 3d 13 75 , 13 79 (11th C i r. 20 06 ), w e hel d thatan IJcom m i tt ed an abuse of di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng a c on t i nu ance w here5

the al i en w as el i gi bl e t o rec ei ve an em pl oym ent -bas ed vi saand el i gi bl e f or an a dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus , pur s ua ntt o § 1255( i ) ( 2) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , i n M e r c ha nt , the pe t i t i one rs a t i s f

i e d a l l the s t a tut ory pr e r e qui s i t e s of § 1255( i ) by s how i ng the t i m e l y f i l i ng of a n appl i c a t i on f

orl aborc e r t i f

i c a t i on, the appr ova l the r e of , the f i l i ng of a n I - 140 pe t i t i on, a nd the f i l i ng of a n I - 485 pe t i t i on ( appl i c a t i on f or adj ustm entof st atus). Id. at13 78 -79. A l tho ug h the pet i t i on er ’ s I -140 pet i t i on had n o t y e t b e e n ap p r o v e d o rd e n ie d , th e p e titio n e rw a s s till e lig ib le u n d e r§ 1 2 5 5 ( i) . Id. at13 78 . W e di st i ng ui shed M er chantfr om Z af ar , w here w e e ar l i erhel d that pet i t i on er s w er e notel i gi bl e f or adj ustm ent s of s t atus w hen they had on l y f i l ed appl i ca t i on s f

or l abor cert i fi ca t i on w i th the D O L , w hi ch w er e s t i l l pend i ng , and h ad n o t f ile d I - 1 4 0 o rI - 4 8 5 p e titio n s . I d .; s e e Z a f a r , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 3 . I n H a s w a ne e , the pe t i t i one rha d a n appr ove d l aborc e r t i f i c a t i on a nd a pend i ng I- 14 0 p et i t i on , w hi ch had n otbeen approv ed or deni ed, bu thad n otfi l ed a n I - 485 pe t i t i on f

ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus . H a s w a ne e , 471 F . 3d a t1217. R e l y i ng o n th e h o l d i n g s o f

Z a f a ra n d Me r c h a n ta n d th e l a n g u a g e o f § 1 2 5 5 ( i ) , we det erm i ned thatan al i en w as el i gi bl e f or an adj ustm entof st atus, al tho ug h h e had noty e tf i l e d a n I - 485 pe t i t i on f

ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus . I d. T hus , w e he l d tha t“ the I J abus e d [ hi s ] di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng H a s w a ne e ’ s m ot i on f orc ont i nua nc e w he r e he ha d a n appr ove d l aborc e r t i f i c a t i on a nd a n i m m e di a t e l y a va i l abl e vi s anum be r , a nd ha d ape ndi ng vi s ape t i t i on. ” I d. a t1218.6

W e f i nd no abuse of di sc re t i on i n the deni al of pet i t i on er ’ s m ot i on for a cont i nu ance because the re cord do es no tshow thatpet i t i on erw as el i gi bl e f or an a d j u s tm e n to f

i m m i g r a t i o n s t a tu s . He f a i l e dt o s h o w e l i g i b i l i ty b e c au s e th e DH S deni ed hi s I -140 vi sapet i t i on i ni t i al l y, and h e f ai l ed t o o ff

erany r ea sons w hy that in itia l d e n ia l w o u ld b e o v e r tu rn e d . I n c o n c lu s io n , th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w is D I S M I S S E D , in p a r t; D E N I E D , in p a r t.