Opinion ID: 62992
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Operations Instruction 245.4(a)(6) and BIA Precedent

Text: Operations instructions are not binding on the BIA; however, the BIA has recognized that they are often persuasive. [19] OI 245.4(a)(6) specifies that [w]hen a properly filed application [for adjustment of status] cannot be completed solely because visa numbers became unavailable subsequent to the filing, the application will be held in abeyance until a visa number is allocated. Even though OI 245.4(a)(6) was cited by Masih and is obviously applicable to the circumstances here at issue, there is no indication in their respective rulings that either the BIA or the IJ even considered it. This apparent oversight is compounded when viewed in the light of prior cases in which the BIA decided to apply OI 245.4(a)(6), most notably Matter of Ho. [20] In Matter of Ho, the alien had conceded removability because she had remained in the United States beyond her authorized length of stay. [21] She had, however, (1) been granted labor certification, (2) been approved for an employment-based visa, and (3) applied for adjustment of status at a time when a visa number was immediately available to her. [22] Thereafter, though, there occurred a regression, i.e., the applicable visa numbers had become completely unavailable. [23] The BIA ruled that OI 245.4(a)(6) was applicable even when an alien applies for adjustment of status after having been placed in deportation proceedings, and that the IJ should take into consideration OI 245.4(a)(6) when it decides whether to grant the alien's request for a continuance. [24] Despite the fact that BIA decisions are binding on IJs in their administration of United States immigration laws, [25] we find no indication in either of his rulings that the IJ considered Matter of Ho. Moreover, the BIA itself is required to follow its own precedent unless overruled or modified; [26] yet here, after acknowledging Matter of Ho in its opinion, the BIA ultimately concluded that the decision did not restrict an [IJ's] discretionary determination to continue or not continue proceedings, citing Ahmed as support for its conclusion. We observe again, though, that Ahmed is clearly distinguishable and inapposite: Unlike Masih, the petitioner in that case was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status. Given that (1) the IJ erred as a matter of law when he ruled that Masih was ineligible for adjustment of status, which error the BIA failed to recognize (or at least to acknowledge), (2) the BIA and the IJ apparently failed to consider OI 245.4(a)(6) in their rulings denying Masih relief, despite that regulation's clear applicability and Masih's express reliance on it, and (3) the BIA's cursory  and curious  disregard of Matter of Ho, we hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying Masih's request for a continuance or abeyance of his removal proceedings. As we are reluctant to infringe on the discretion of the BIA and the IJ, we remand this matter to the BIA for it to remand to the IJ with instructions to reconsider Masih's request ab initio, giving due consideration to this opinion and to OI 245.4(a)(6) and Matter of Ho.