Opinion ID: 1462708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IL The Order Denying Zine's Motion to Reconsider and Reopen

Text: Zine married a U.S. citizen in August 2002, while the asylum-only proceeding was pending before the IJ. His wife filed a Form 1-130 petition for an immediate relative visa in 2003. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154(a)(1)(A). The petition was pending when the IJ denied Zine's asylum application. The Department of Homeland Security approved the wife's petition while Zine's administrative appeal to the BIA was pending. After the BIA's adverse decision, Zinc filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, arguing (1) the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's adverse credibility finding, and (2) the proceeding should be reopened so he may pursue adjustment of status based upon his wife's immediate relative visa. The BIA denied the motion. Zine petitions for judicial review of this second BIA order. (1) Zine argues that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reconsider the IJ's flawed credibility analysis. Because motions to reopen are disfavored, our review for abuse of discretion is highly deferential. See Esenwah v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 962, 125 S.Ct. 1741, 161 L.Ed.2d 604 (2005). Here, Zine's motion to reconsider merely reiterated his prior attacks on the IJ's credibility analysis, and the motion to reopen was based on an additional document that was not newly discovered evidence and did not demonstrate that Zine is entitled to relief. The BIA did not abuse its, discretion in concluding that Zine failed to meet the `heavy burden' of showing that a motion to reopen or to reconsider is warranted. Order of November 24, 2006, at p. 1. (2) Zine further argues that the BIA abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the asylum-only proceeding to allow him to apply for adjustment of status based on the grant of his wife's immediate relative visa petition. The BIA denied this relief on the ground that adjustment of status is not available to aliens admitted under the Visa Waiver Program. As we will explain, this assertion is so broadly worded that it may conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(4). However, we agree that Zine was not entitled to the relief he requested. The VWP eliminates barriers to travel, stimulates tourism, and reduces the burden of processing visa applications by citizens of countries whose nationals have traditionally abided by U.S. immigration law. H.R.Rep. No. 99-682(I), at 50 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5654. But the Program includes safeguards to minimize abuses. To be admitted under the VWP, an eligible alien must travel to the United States on a round-trip ticket, may not stay more than ninety days, and must agree not to contest removal other than on the basis of an application for asylum. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1187(a)(1), (a)(8), (b)(2). When an alien overstays the ninety-day period but wishes to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, immigration officials issue an 1-863 Notice of Referral to an IJ who then has exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the asylum application. This proceeding before the IJ is referred to as an asylum-only proceeding because, consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b)(2), all parties are prohibited from raising or considering any other issues, including but not limited to issues of admissibility, deportability, eligibility for waivers, and eligibility for any other form of relief. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(3)(i). This regulation appears to resolve the issue in favor of the BIA's ruling. But Zine counters with two different arguments. First, although he entered the United States under the VWP, Zinc is an Algerian, a national of a country that does riot participate in the VWP. See 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(2). Because he was not eligible to enter under the VWP, Zine argues, he should not be bound by its restrictions on discretionary relief such as adjustment of status. This argument is without merit. The Attorney General's regulations expressly provide that an alien who enters under the VWP by present[ing] fraudulent or counterfeit travel documents will be removed without referral to an immigration judge unless he applies for asylum, in which case he must be issued a Form I-863, Notice of Referral . . . for a proceeding in accordance with [8 C.F.R. § 1208.2]. 8 C.F.R. § 217.4(a)(1). The BIA strictly enforces this provision. See In re Kanagasundram, 22 I & N Dec. 963, 964-65 (BIA 1999) (rejecting the government's request for expedited removal instead of an asylum-only proceeding). And properly so. If Zine's interpretation of the VWP were correct, ineligible aliens who fraudulently abuse the Program would receive the benefits of VWP entry but be free of the Program's restrictions. Thus, Zine is subject to the restrictions on asylum-only proceedings set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(3)(i). Second, the adjustment of status statute provides that this relief is not available to an alien who entered under the VWP other than an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(4). Now that his wife's immediate relative visa has been granted, Zinc argues, he is eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), [5] and therefore the BIA abused its discretion when it refused to reopen this' proceeding to allow him to obtain that relief. We disagree. Though Zinc as an immediate relative may be eligible for adjustment of status, the relevant statutes and implementing regulations do not grant the BIA jurisdiction to adjust Zine's status in an asylum-only proceeding. The regulations grant immigration judges exclusive jurisdiction to consider the adjustment application of an alien who has been placed. . . . in removal proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1). But aliens admitted under the VWP are not eligible for removal proceedings, only asylum-only proceedings in which adjustment of status may not be sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(e)(iv). Thus, under the regulations, a VWP alien who is ordered removed because he overstayed his ninety-day authorized visit and is referred to an asylum-only proceeding has waived his right to contest that removal through an application for adjustment of status To conclude otherwise would frustrate Congress' intent in establishing the VWP, and would be contrary to the statutes and regulations governing an alien's right to an adjustment of status. Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1128 (10th Cir.2006); accord Lacey v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 514 (6th Cir.2007). We agree with this interpretation of the statutes and regulations. For these reasons, even if Zine had applied for adjustment of status prior to the conclusion of his asylum-only hearing, the IJ would not have had jurisdiction to consider that application. See Ferry, 457 F.3d at 1126-28; Lacey, 499 F.3d at 519. Indeed, at the second of the six hearings, the IJ clearly advised Zinc that, even if . . . the 1-130 is approved, I still have no jurisdiction to consider an adjustment application in this asylum-only proceeding. Thus, Zine had ample notice of this limitation on the IJ's jurisdiction, yet he did not object to being placed in the asylum-only proceeding. As the IJ lacked jurisdiction to consider an adjustment of status application in this asylum-only proceeding, the BIA plainly did not abuse its discretion when it denied Zine's motion to reopen the proceeding for that purpose. [6] We deny the petitions for review.