Opinion ID: 2993894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Upon a finding of removability, an immigrant can apply for discretionary relief, which includes adjustment of status. Foul v. Mukasey, 256 F. App’x 785, 788 (6th Cir. 2007). Familybased adjustment of status is a two-step process. Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 789 (BIA 2009). First, a United States citizen or permanent resident files an I-130 petition with the USCIS on behalf of a family member. Id. The citizen or permanent resident must establish his own lawful status as well as demonstrate that his relationship with his family member is genuine. 4 No. 14-3243 Qing Tian v. Lynch Id. After approval of the I-130 petition, and once an immigrant visa is available, the immigrant may apply for adjustment of status under § 245(a) of the INA. Id. The immigrant has the burden of establishing eligibility for the adjustment, which the immigrant can do by demonstrating that she “is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and has a visa immediately available” and that she “is not statutorily barred from adjustment,” among other things. Id.
We review a denial of a motion for continuance for an abuse of discretion. Ukpabi v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 403, 407 (6th Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the denial was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Where the BIA reviews the immigration judge’s decision and issues a separate opinion, rather than summarily affirming the immigration judge’s decision, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency determination.” Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). “To the extent the BIA adopted the immigration judge’s reasoning, however, this Court also reviews the immigration judge’s decision.” Id. An IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1240.6; see also Young Hee Kwak v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1140, 1144 (6th Cir. 2010). The BIA has identified a number of factors to guide a determination of whether there is good cause to continue proceedings to afford the immigrant an opportunity to apply for adjustment of status. See Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 790. Those factors include “(1) the DHS response to the motion; 5 No. 14-3243 Qing Tian v. Lynch (2) whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable; (3) the [immigrant’s] statutory eligibility for adjustment of status; (4) whether the [immigrant’s] application for adjustment merits a favorable exercise of discretion; and (5) the reason for the continuance.” Id. “While all these factors may be relevant in a given case, the focus of the inquiry is the apparent ultimate likelihood of success on the adjustment application.” Id. Here, the IJ observed that multiple factors weighed against a finding of good cause, the most crucial of which was that as long as the USCIS’s prior determination of marriage fraud stood, Tian was statutorily barred from receiving an adjustment of status under § 204(c) of the INA. A.R. at 182 (Feb. 21, 2012 IJ Order at 5). This section bars immigration officials from approving visa petitions where “the alien has previously . . . sought to be accorded[] an immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States or the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage . . . entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.” INA § 204(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c). The IJ further observed that although both Smith and Swartz had an opportunity to appeal the finding of fraud after the denial of the I-130 petitions, they did not. A.R. at 182 (Feb. 21, 2012 IJ Order at 5). Thus, the IJ concluded there was no good cause for a continuance. Id. The BIA agreed, noting that without any evidence in the record to counter it, the prior finding of marriage fraud barred Tian from receiving an adjustment of status. Id. at 3 (BIA Op. at 1). Neither decision is an abuse of discretion. Indeed, “we have declined to find an abuse of discretion when the petitioner did not provide any evidence that suggested a likelihood of 6 No. 14-3243 Qing Tian v. Lynch success on the merits of the pending petition.” Young Hee Kwak, 607 F.3d at 1144 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Nor is this a case in which the IJ “had little reason to believe [petitioner] would not be able to obtain an adjustment of status.” Cika v. Holder, 344 F. App’x 208, 217 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The remainder of Tian’s arguments, including that the IJ abused his discretion by failing to consider all of Hashmi’s suggested factors, are unpersuasive. See Petitioner Br. at 17‒18. See Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 627, 634–35 (6th Cir. 2006).
Tian also filed a motion to terminate removal proceedings, arguing that the notice to appear (NTA) that she received violated DHS’s policy and was therefore “unlawfully filed.” A.R at 152 (Mot. to Terminate Removal Proceedings at 3). Tian’s argument relies on an interoffice memorandum that provides, “In cases where fraud has been verified in a Fraud Verification Memorandum and the denial is at least in part based on a finding of fraud, USCIS will issue an NTA once it denies the case. The NTA must include the appropriate fraud charge.” Id. at 160 (USCIS Policy Mem. at 6). As the IJ noted, however, the memorandum also provides, “This internal guidance is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit.” Id. at 162 (USCIS Policy Mem. at 8). Thus, the IJ denied the motion to terminate removal proceedings. Id. at 55 (July 10, 2012 IJ Order at 3). The IJ also concluded that Tian’s argument that she needed a formal charge of fraud in order to respond to the finding was unpersuasive. Id. As the IJ explained, Tian could have responded to the allegations or could 7 No. 14-3243 Qing Tian v. Lynch have, through Smith or Swartz, contested the finding when the first two I-130 petitions were denied. Id.