Opinion ID: 3038868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wu’s Claim for Adjustment of Status

Text: Wu claims that the BIA improperly denied his request for a remand to the IJ to adjudicate his application for an adjustment of status. The BIA explained that “[w]hile this case was pending before us on remand, amendments to the regulations regarding the availability of adjustment of status for arriving aliens in removal proceedings were promulgated.” (App. 3 (citing 71 Fed. Reg. 27,585-592 (May 12, 2006) (now codified at 8 C.F.R. §1245.2(a)(1)(ii))).) The amended regulations make clear that, unless certain criteria are met, “the immigration judge does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for adjustment of status filed by the arriving alien.” 8 C.F.R. §1245.2(a)(1)(ii). According to the BIA, these new amendments “are applicable to all 5 To the extent that Wu’s CAT claim is based on his allegedly unlawful escape from China, we agree with the BIA that Wu cannot sustain his burden of proving that he will more likely than not be tortured—as defined in 8 C.F.R. §1208.18(a)—upon his return to China. The 2004 State Department report (China: Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions), which is part of the administrative record in this case and upon which the BIA relied, supports this conclusion. 9 cases pending administrative or judicial review on or after May 12, 2006.” (Id.) Wu contends (in a conclusory fashion) that his case “should be grandfathered from the Interim Regulations . . . and remanded to the Immigration Court.” 6 (Pet’r’s Br. 31-32.) Finding no legal basis for this contention, we are not so convinced. Accordingly, Wu and his wife must pursue any applications for status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, independent of their removal proceedings.