Opinion ID: 62992
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Eligibility for Adjustment of Status

Text: To better assess Masih's contentions that he demonstrated good cause for a continuance and that the BIA abused its discretion in denying it, we must begin with a brief overview of the three-step process through which aliens seek legal status based on employment. [6] First, the alien's prospective employer in the United States must petition, on the alien's behalf, for labor certification with the Department of Labor (DOL). [7] If the DOL approves the petition, the prospective employer is then required, at step two of the process, to file an I-140 petition with the DHS for an employment-based visa for the alien. [8] If the I-140 petition is approved, the date on which it was filed becomes the alien's priority date for allotment of a visa number. [9] The third and final step of the process for aliens who, like Masih, reside in the United States, is to file with the DHS an I-485 application for adjustment of status, which, if approved, would result in the adjustment of the alien's status to lawful permanent resident. [10] To be eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2), the applicant must show that: (A) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence; and (B) an immigrant visa is immediately available to the alien at the time the application is filed. [11] Masih is the beneficiary of an approved labor certification application and of an approved I-140 petition; and, most significantly to his case, he had a visa priority date that was current at the time he filed his I-485 adjustment application. An immigrant visa is considered immediately available for purposes of § 1255(i) if the Bulletin shows that visa numbers for applicants in the alien's category are current. [12] Accordingly, Masih was statutorily eligible for adjustment of status at the time he filed his I-485 application and he has remained so ever since, notwithstanding the government's insistence  and the IJ's conclusion  to the contrary. For an alien in Masih's circumstances to be statutorily eligible for adjustment, the plain language of § 1255(i)(2)(B) requires only that an immigrant visa be immediately available to the alien at the time the application for adjustment of status is filed. [13] The BIA even recognized that Masih appeared to have satisfied the requirements for adjustment when it originally remanded his case to the IJ. That the applicable visas regressed after Masih filed his I-485 adjustment application had no effect whatsoever on his eligibility for adjustment. Furthermore, that Masih was  and remains  statutorily eligible for adjustment of status distinguishes this case from Ali v. Gonzales [14] and Ahmed v. Gonzales, [15] two cases relied on by the government. In each of these cases, we concluded that the petitioner seeking a continuance lacked good cause because he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status: Ali was ineligible because his labor certification application had not been timely filed; [16] and Ahmed was ineligible because only a labor certification application had been filed on his behalf. [17] Even if that application had been approved, Ahmed would still have needed for a prospective employer to file an I-140 employment-based visa petition on his behalf; and only if that petition were approved and a visa were immediately available to Ahmed when he filed his I-485 application would he have then been eligible for adjustment of status. [18]