Case Name: Ashraf Ali BAIG, Sameena Fathima, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-10
Citations: 492 F. App'x 31
Docket Number: No. 12-10208
Parties: Ashraf Ali BAIG, Sameena Fathima, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Judges: Before PRYOR, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 492
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
Ashraf Ali BAIG, Sameena Fathima, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 12-10208
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 10, 2012.
Danielle M. Conley, Kuck Immigration Partners LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioners.
David V. Bernal, Karen L. Melnik, Krystal Samuels, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Alfie Owens, DHS Chief Counsel, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent.
Before PRYOR, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ashraf Ali Baig and Sameena Fathima, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the order that affirmed the denial of their motion for a continuance. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the finding of the immigration judge that Baig's future eligibility for an adjustment of status did not constitute good cause to continue his and Fathima's removal proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. We deny the petition.
The immigration judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the motion to continue. To be eligible for an adjustment of status, an alien must be "eligible to receive an immigration visa" and the visa must be "immediately available" to the alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A), (B). Baig has an approved third-preference employment-based visa petition with a priority date of October 20, 2003, but when the immigration judge considered Baig's motion, visas were available only to aliens with a priority date of October 1, 2001, or earlier. Notably, when the Board issued its decision, third-preference employment-based visas were available to aliens with a priority date of July 22, 2002, or earlier. Because of the indefinite wait that Baig faced to obtain an immigrant visa, no good cause existed to continue the removal proceeding. See Chacku v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 555 F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th Cir.2008); Zafar v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1363-64 (11th Cir.2006).
We DENY Baig and Fathima's petition.