Court Opinion

ID: 9364632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 20:01:05.114883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.464557
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10001    Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 1 of 14

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                 No. 22-10001
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

        IBRAHIM OMOTAYO RAJI,
                                                                Petitioner,
        versus
        U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                               Respondent.

                          ____________________

                    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A214-947-556
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10001       Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 01/19/2023   Page: 2 of 14

        2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10001

        Before TJOFLAT, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                 Ibrahim Raji petitions for review of the order of the Board
        of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider
        its affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion
        to continue his removal proceedings. Raji argues that the BIA
        should have reconsidered its decision because he was entitled to a
        continuance of his proceedings pending the adjudication of his
        wife’s second application for visa status on Raji’s behalf, and the IJ
        had previously allowed Raji to continue his proceedings while his
        wife’s first application for visa status was pending. We reject Raji’s
        arguments and accordingly deny his petition for review.
                                              I.
               Raji—a native and citizen of Nigeria— entered the United
        States on December 26, 2016, pursuant to a work visa. Based on
        the terms of the visa, Raji was authorized to stay in the United
        States until June 25, 2017. On September 20, 2018—over a year
        after Raji’s visa expired—the Department of Homeland Security
        (“DHS”) issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging Raji with
        overstaying his visa without authorization.1 Raji admitted the al-
        legations in the NTA and conceded the charges, but he requested

        1 The DHS explained that Raji was deportable because he violated Section
        237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by remaining in the
        United States longer than permitted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B).
USCA11 Case: 22-10001         Document: 24-1          Date Filed: 01/19/2023         Page: 3 of 14

        22-10001                   Opinion of the Court                                 3

        that his status be adjusted due to the pending I-130 petition that his
        wife, Chebreka Smith, filed on his behalf on July 16, 2018. 2 Based
        on Smith’s pending I-130 petition, Raji had filed an I-485 Applica-
        tion to Register Permanent Residence3 on July 27, 2018. The I-485
        application was pending at the time the NTA was issued. 4 At his

        2 A U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident can file an I-130 petition with
        United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to request per-
        manent resident status for an alien relative or spouse. See 8 U.S.C.
        § 1154(a)(1)(A)(i) (“[A]ny citizen of the United States claiming that an alien is
        entitled to . . . an immediate relative status . . . may file a petition with the
        Attorney General for such classification.”); 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1) (“A United
        States citizen or alien admitted for lawful permanent residence may file a [visa]
        petition on behalf of a spouse.”).
        3 An alien seeking permanent resident status may file an I-485 petition while
        the I-130 petition of which he is the beneficiary is pending, so long as he is the
        immediate relative of a United States citizen. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr.
        Servs., Instructions for Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust
        Status 21 (2022); see 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (stating that the Attorney General can
        adjust the status of an alien to that of a lawful permanent resident “if (1) the
        alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to re-
        ceive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent
        residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the
        time his application is filed.”). Immediate relatives of citizens include their
        spouses, unmarried children under 21, and parents 21 or older. 8 U.S.C.
        § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i).
        4 Raji’s I-485 petition was administratively closed by USCIS on January 14,
        2020. The USCIS can administratively close an I-485 petition if the petitioner
        fails to timely respond to a request for evidence or a notice of intent to deny,
        or if the petitioner fails to appear for his naturalization exam and does not
USCA11 Case: 22-10001        Document: 24-1        Date Filed: 01/19/2023        Page: 4 of 14

        4                         Opinion of the Court                     22-10001

        first hearing before the IJ on October 16, 2018, Raji asked for a con-
        tinuance as Smith’s first I-130 was being processed, which the IJ
        granted.
                The IJ granted Raji 15 continuances between February 28,
        2019, and September 29, 2020—each one pending adjudication of
        Smith’s I-130 application. United States Citizenship and Immigra-
        tion Services (“USCIS”) denied Smith’s I-130 petition on September
        30, 2020. During his hearing on October 30, 2020, Raji informed
        the IJ that Smith’s I-130 application had been denied but that he had
        filed an appeal of the denial on October 8.5 The IJ declined to con-
        tinue the proceedings pending Raji’s I-130 appeal, but she agreed
        to continue the case until November 20 while Raji explored alter-
        native forms of relief. At his November 20 hearing, Raji informed
        the IJ that Smith had filed a second I-130 application. Raji again
        moved for a continuance based on his appeal of the first I-130 denial
        and Smith’s second I-130 petition. The IJ refused to continue the
        case based on Raji’s I-130 appeal and Smith’s new I-130 petition,
        but she continued Raji’s case “one last time” so Raji’s new attorney
        would have a chance to pursue alternative avenues of relief.

        notify the USCIS in writing within 30 days of the examination date. 8 C.F.R.
        § 103.2(b)(13)(ii); id. § 335.6(a).
        5 Because Raji rather than Smith appealed the denial of Smith’s first I-130,
        the BIA dismissed Raji’s appeal on December 9, 2021. Smith, not Raji, was
        the one who was authorized to file a I-130 petition and appeal USCIS’s denial
        of the petition.
USCA11 Case: 22-10001      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 5 of 14

        22-10001               Opinion of the Court                         5

                 At Raji’s hearing on December 18, 2020, the IJ denied Raji’s
        motion for continuance and issued an order of removal. The IJ
        stated that there was not good cause to grant Raji’s motion for con-
        tinuance because: (1) his proceedings had been going on for two
        years; (2) the DHS opposed the continuance and had denied the
        previous I-130 application; and (3) Raji had received the benefit of
        15 previous continuances. The IJ also detailed the issues in Smith’s
        first I-130 petition, noting that Smith failed to “show by a prepon-
        derance of the evidence that [her marriage to Raji] was legally valid
        and bona fide at its inception.” Administrative Record at 80. Based
        on her review of Smith’s first I-130 petition, the IJ concluded that
        Raji had not shown that Smith’s second I-130 petition was prima
        facie approvable.
               Raji subsequently appealed the IJ’s decision before the BIA,
        arguing that the IJ had abused her discretion in finding him remov-
        able and denying his motion for a continuance. Raji asserted that,
        under Matter of Garcia, an IJ should, “as a general rule,” grant mo-
        tions for continuance “where a prima facie approvable visa petition
        and adjustment application have been submitted.” 16 I. & N. Dec.
        653, 656 (BIA 1978). He also explained that, under Matter of L-A-
        B-R-, when considering whether to grant a motion for a continu-
        ance, an IJ should focus on the likelihood that the alien will receive
        collateral relief and whether that relief will materially affect the
        outcome of the removal proceedings. 27 I. & N. Dec. 405 (U.S.
        Att’y Gen. 2018). Applying L-A-B-R- to his own case, Raji argued
        that Smith’s second I-130 application was likely to be approved
USCA11 Case: 22-10001         Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 01/19/2023         Page: 6 of 14

        6                          Opinion of the Court                       22-10001

        because he had been married to an American citizen for more than
        three years, and the first I-130 application had been rejected be-
        cause Smith’s attorney failed to file a Notice of Intent to Deny. Raji
        also argued that the outcome of his removal proceedings would
        necessarily be affected if Smith’s second I-130 petition was granted.
                On May 12, 2021, the BIA dismissed Raji’s appeal and
        adopted the IJ’s decision. The BIA explained that Garcia had been
        significantly modified by the BIA,6 and L-A-B-R- sets out the appro-
        priate standard for when a petitioner has established good cause for
        a continuance. The BIA concluded that the IJ was within her dis-
        cretion to deny Raji’s request for a continuance because he did not
        show that Smith’s I-130 petition would be approved within a rea-
        sonable amount of time. 7
              Raji moved for the BIA to reconsider the dismissal, but the
        BIA denied Raji’s motion to reconsider on December 7, 2021. Raji

        6 See Lemus v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 2018) (“[T]he BIA has on
        several occasions modified Garcia.”).
        7 The BIA also noted that Raji did not adequately allege ineffective assistance
        of counsel with regard to Smith’s first visa application; “he ha[d] not acknowl-
        edged, much less fulfilled, the procedural and substantive steps for such a
        claim. See generally Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 638–40 (BIA 1988),
        pet. for rev. denied, Lozada v, INS, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). See also Mailer
        of Melgar, 28 I. & N. Dec. 169, 170–72 (BIA 2020).”
USCA11 Case: 22-10001        Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 01/19/2023        Page: 7 of 14

        22-10001                  Opinion of the Court                              7

        timely petitioned for review of the denial of the motion to recon-
        sider on January 3, 2022. 8
                                                 II.
               We review a denial of a motion for reconsideration by the
        BIA for abuse of discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 332 F.3d
        1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). This review is limited to determining
        whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capri-
        cious manner. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th
        Cir. 2009). “The BIA abuses its discretion when it misapplies the
        law in reaching its decision,” or when it fails to follow its own prec-
        edents “without providing a reasoned explanation for doing so.”
        Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir. 2013).
               The BIA’s denial of Raji’s Motion to Reconsider reiterated
        the merits of its May 12 decision affirming the IJ’s continuance de-
        nial. To determine whether the BIA abused its discretion in deny-
        ing Raji’s Motion to Reconsider, we must therefore consider
        whether the BIA properly applied the law in its May 12 decision
        affirming the IJ’s denial of Raji’s motion for a continuance. When
        the BIA issues an order expressly affirming and adopting the IJ’s
        decision, we also review the merits of the IJ’s order when

        8 A motion to reconsider does not toll the time to petition for review of the
        underlying order. Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th
        Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Therefore, when a petitioner files a timely petition
        to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider but does not petition to
        review the underlying order, this Court reviews only the arguments as they
        relate to the motion. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-10001      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 8 of 14

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10001

        reviewing the BIA’s order. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262,
        1284 (11th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Patel v. U.S.
        Atty. Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020). In this case, the BIA
        affirmed and adopted the IJ’s continuance denial in its May 12 or-
        der, so to the extent that we are reviewing the BIA’s May 12 order
        we are also reviewing the IJ’s denial of Raji’s motion for a continu-
        ance.
                An IJ may grant a motion for a continuance of removal pro-
        ceedings only “for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. “As a
        general rule,” an IJ should grant a motion for a continuance “where
        a prima facie approvable visa petition and adjustment application
        have been submitted.” Matter of Garcia, 16 I. & N. Dec. at 657.
        Garcia’s rule is not, however, meant to be an “inflexible rule re-
        quiring immigration judges in all cases” to grant continuances. Id.
        It “clearly would not be an abuse of discretion” to deny a continu-
        ance because, for example, the pending visa application is frivolous,
        or the adjustment application is likely to be denied on either statu-
        tory or discretionary grounds. Id.
              L-A-B-R- sets out a number of factors that an IJ must con-
        sider when deciding whether to grant an alien’s motion for a con-
        tinuance to pursue collateral relief, but it highlights two factors as
        particularly important. One of these factors is the likelihood that
        the collateral relief will be granted. Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N.
        Dec. at 412. The Attorney General has emphasized that “the over-
        use of continuances in the immigration courts is a significant and
        recurring problem” and that overuse of continuances
USCA11 Case: 22-10001      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 9 of 14

        22-10001               Opinion of the Court                         9

        “undermine[s] the detailed statutory and regulatory scheme estab-
        lished under the [Immigration and Nationality Act].” Id. at 411.
        Respondents seeking a continuance to pursue collateral relief must
        therefore show that the likelihood of obtaining relief is more than
        “merely speculative.” Id. at 414.
                The other important factor that an IJ must consider under
        L-A-B-R- is whether collateral relief would materially affect the out-
        come of a respondent’s removal proceedings. L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N.
        Dec. at 419. A respondent cannot make such a showing when the
        “visa priority date is too remote to raise the prospect of adjustment
        of status above the speculative level,” even if the visa application
        itself has been approved. Id. at 418. Moreover, a respondent typi-
        cally cannot prevail in showing that his approved visa application
        will materially affect the outcome of removal proceedings without
        documentary proof that adjustment of status is likely. Id.
               Although an IJ must consider a respondent’s likelihood of
        success and the effect collateral relief would have on the respond-
        ent’s proceedings when ruling on a motion for a continuance, L-A-
        B-R- does not permit IJs to limit their analysis to those two factors.
        Under L-A-B-R-, IJs must also consider factors such as the timing of
        the continuance motion, the DHS’s position on the motion, inter-
        ests in administrative efficiency, and the number of previously
        granted continuances and hearings. See id at 413, 415.
               Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion because in both
        the December 7 order and the May 12 order, the BIA properly con-
        sidered the relevant L-A-B-R- factors. In the May 12 order, the BIA
USCA11 Case: 22-10001         Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 01/19/2023         Page: 10 of 14

        10                         Opinion of the Court                        22-10001

        concluded that Raji failed to show that Smith’s second I-130 appli-
        cation was prima facie approvable—and that he had thus failed to
        demonstrate a high likelihood of success. The BIA based its con-
        clusion on the IJ’s holding that Smith’s second I-130 petition did not
        constitute good cause for a continuance because the USCIS denied
        Smith’s previous I-130 petition because she failed to show by a pre-
        ponderance of the evidence that her marriage to Raji was legiti-
        mate. In the December 7 order, the BIA noted that Raji had not
        presented any evidence on the statuses of his appeal of Smith’s first
        I-130 petition or Smith’s second I-130 petition since the IJ’s original
        decision denying the continuance.
               The BIA also concluded that Raji failed to prove that the sec-
        ond I-130 application would materially affect his removal proceed-
        ings. Raji explained why Smith’s first I-130 application was denied
        and described his efforts to rectify the alleged errors of Smith’s
        counsel—both by appealing the denial of Smith’s first I-130 petition
        and by having Smith filing a second I-130 application. 9 He did not,
        however, provide documentary evidence to support his assertion
        that the appeal or the second I-130 application would be successful.
        Raji also had not provided any documentary evidence for the BIA
        to look at in ruling on Raji’s Motion to Reconsider; in the Decem-
        ber 7 order, the BIA stated that Raji had not presented any evidence

        9 It is worth noting that although Raji mentioned his appeal of Smith’s first I-
        130 petition in his brief appealing the IJ’s original decision, he did not mention
        the appeal in his Motion to Reconsider.
USCA11 Case: 22-10001     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 11 of 14

        22-10001               Opinion of the Court                        11

        on the status of either Smith’s first or second I-130 petition since
        the IJ’s initial decision. Absent such evidence, the prospect that
        Raji’s visa would be approved was “remote” and “speculative,” so
        Raji failed to demonstrate that his visa application would materially
        affect the removal proceedings. See L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at
        418.
               The BIA also considered other L-A-B-R- factors in its orders.
        In its May 12 order, the BIA provided the following reasons for
        adopting the IJ’s decision to deny Raji’s motion for a continuance:
        (1) Raji’s proceedings had been going on for two years; (2) DHS
        opposed the continuance; (3) the USCIS had denied Smith’s previ-
        ous I-130 application; and (4) Raji had already received 15 prior con-
        tinuances from the IJ. The BIA subsequently denied Raji’s Motion
        to Reconsider because it had “considered the appropriate factors
        and law with regard to continuances” in its May 12 order. Under
        L-A-B-R-, the factors the BIA considered were all permissible rea-
        sons for denying Raji’s motion for a continuance. L-A-B-R- pro-
        vides that the DHS’s position on respondent’s motion for a contin-
        uance and the number of previously granted continuances are im-
        portant factors to consider. 27 I. & N. Dec. at 413. Furthermore,
        the length of Raji’s proceedings speaks to concerns about adminis-
        trative efficiency. See id.
                                            III.
               Raji’s claim that the BIA did not consider the requisite fac-
        tors in denying his motion for continuance lacks merit. Contrary
        to Raji’s assertion that his motion was denied solely because
USCA11 Case: 22-10001      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 12 of 14

        12                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10001

        Smith’s I-130 petition was still pending, the IJ denied his motion for
        several reasons, all of which were adopted by the BIA. Raji con-
        tends that the IJ and BIA impermissibly ignored L-A-B-R-, but his
        contention does not hold weight because all the reasons the BIA
        provided for its denial track the L-A-B-R- factors. See L-A-B-R-, 27
        I. &. N. Dec. at 405, 416.
               Raji further claims that having a pending prima facie approv-
        able spousal I-130 petition renders an individual eligible for a con-
        tinuance, even if he has not shown that the petition will be ap-
        proved in a reasonable amount of time. This claim also lacks merit.
        Under L-A-B-R-, IJs can consider the timeline of relief in determin-
        ing whether to grant a continuance. Id. at 418. An individual is not
        entitled to a continuance, for example, if the date when he will re-
        ceive his visa is “too remote to raise the prospect of adjustment of
        status above the speculative level.” Id. Here, Raji did not provide
        the BIA with any documentary evidence to support his assertion
        that Smith’s second I-130 petition ha[d] a more than speculative
        chance of being granted.
                Raji correctly notes that according to this Court’s decision in
        Bull v. INS, “discretion should . . . be favorably exercised where a
        prima facie approvable visa application and adjustment application
        have been submitted in the course of a deportation hearing.” 790
        F.2d 869, 872 (11th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
        In this case, however, the BIA adopted the IJ’s finding that Raji did
        not show that Smith’s I-130 petition was prima facie approvable.
        As both the IJ and the BIA pointed out, the USCIS’s denial of
USCA11 Case: 22-10001     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 13 of 14

        22-10001               Opinion of the Court                        13

        Smith’s first I-130 petition weighed against finding that Smith’s sec-
        ond I-130 petition was prima facie approvable—and Raji had not
        provided any documentary evidence to the contrary. Even if IJs
        generally should grant continuances to individuals when their
        spouses’ I-130 petitions are pending, they are not required to do so
        when other factors described in L-A-B-R- weigh against granting a
        continuance. That is the case here.
                Raji’s assertion that the BIA erred by ignoring his arguments
        under Garcia fails for the same reasons. Before both the BIA and
        this Court, Raji relied solely on Garcia’s general statement that mo-
        tions for a continuance should, “as a general rule,” be granted
        where a prima facie visa petition has been submitted. Garcia does
        not, however, require an IJ to grant a continuance where other fac-
        tors weigh against doing so—for example, if the I-130 visa petition
        is frivolous or the adjustment of status application is likely to be
        denied. See Garcia, 16 I. & N. Dec. at 657 (holding that there is no
        “inflexible rule” requiring continuances whenever there is a pend-
        ing visa application). Raji is not entitled to relief under Garcia be-
        cause he did not show that Smith’s I-130 petition was prima facie
        approvable.
                                            IV.
               The BIA’s denial of the motion for reconsideration was nei-
        ther arbitrary nor capricious, given that Raji’s removal proceedings
        had lasted two years, DHS opposed the continuance, Smith’s prior
        I-130 petition had been denied, he had already received 15 contin-
        uances, and he had not shown that Smith’s second I-130 petition
USCA11 Case: 22-10001    Document: 24-1    Date Filed: 01/19/2023   Page: 14 of 14

        14                    Opinion of the Court              22-10001

        was prima facie approvable. Therefore, his petition for review is
        denied.
              PETITION DENIED.