In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed a denial of the respondent’s application for adjustment of status upon finding the immigration judge erroneously reviewed the most recently denied I-485 rather than her initial I-485. The Board remanded the record for the immigration judge to determine whether the respondent's resubmitted adjustment application should be treated as a renewed application and whether there exists a continued offer of employment as set forth in the I-140. The decision was issued by Member Roger Pauley and joined by Anne Greer and Member Teresa Donovan.
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed a denial of the respondent’s application for adjustment of status upon finding the immigration judge erroneously reviewed the most recently denied I-485 rather than her initial I-485. The Board remanded the record for the immigration judge to determine whether the respondent's resubmitted adjustment application should be treated as a renewed application and whether there exists a continued offer of employment as set forth in the I-140. The decision was issued by Member Roger Pauley and joined by Anne Greer and Member Teresa Donovan.
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed a denial of the respondent’s application for adjustment of status upon finding the immigration judge erroneously reviewed the most recently denied I-485 rather than her initial I-485. The Board remanded the record for the immigration judge to determine whether the respondent's resubmitted adjustment application should be treated as a renewed application and whether there exists a continued offer of employment as set forth in the I-140. The decision was issued by Member Roger Pauley and joined by Anne Greer and Member Teresa Donovan.
Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
40 W. 37th Street, Suite 4028 New York, NY 10018 Name: KIM, Ml JUNG U.S. Department of Justice Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review Board of Immigation Appeals Ofce of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg P;ke, Suite 2000 Fa/s Church, Virginia 20530 OHS / ICE Office of Chief Counsel - NYC 26 Federal Plaza, 11th Floor New York, NY 10278 A 098-768-57 4 Date of this notice: 9/ 18 / 2014 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Greer, Anne J. Pauley, Roger Donovan, Teresa L. Sincerely, DO c a Donna Carr Chief Clerk Userteam: Docket For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mi Jung Kim, A098 768 574 (BIA Sept. 19, 2014) U.S. Department of Justice Executive Offce. fr Immigation Review Decision of the Boad of Immigation Appeals Falls Chuch, Virginia 20530 File: A098 768 574 - New York, NY In re: MI JUNG KIM IN REMOVAL PROCEEDIGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RSPONDENT: Justin You, Esquire CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 237(a)(l)(B), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B)] - In the United States i violation of law APP LI CATION: Adjustment of sttus Date: SEP 1 S 2Q4 The respondent, a native and citizen of South Korea, has appeaed fom an Immigration Judge's Mach 6, 2013, decision denying his application fr adjustent of status. The Departent of Homeland Security ("DHS") has not fled a response to the respondent's appeal. The appeal wll be sustained, ad the record will be remaded. We review an Immigration Judge's fctual fndings fr clear eror. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review all remaning issues, including issues of law, discretion, and judgent, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii). The respondent was admitted to the United States a a nonimmigrant visitor on August 30, 2004, wit authorization to remain until Febray 28, 2005. On Janua 14, 2005, Healthpro Staffng, Inc. fled a Immigation Petition fr Alien Worker (orm 1-140) on behalf of the respondent with Unted States Citizenship and Immigration Serices ("USCIS"). The respondent simultaeously fled an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form 1-485) prior to the expiration of her nonimmigrant visa (I.J. at 2). While USCIS approved the 1-140, it denied the respondent's ajustment application because she did not submit the cerifcation required under section 212(a)(5)(C) of the Immigration ad Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1l82(a)(5)(C) (an alien seekng entry to perfr labor as a health-care worker other than a physician must present a certifcate fom the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools or equivalent in order to be admissible); see also section 245(a) of the Act. On March 13, 2006, the respondent fled a second I-485 with USCIS, which was denied on August 11, 2006, under section 245( c )(2) of the Act fr filing to maintain continuously lawfl status. On October 30, 2006, the respondent fled a third 1-485. USCIS denied the application on September 12, 2007, fnding that she filed to maintin contiuously a lawfl status and that she was ineligible fr a section 245(k) waver of the requirements of section 245( c) because she failed to maintain continuously a lawl status fr more than 180 days. The respondent fled a furt I-485 on April 25, 2008, but withdrew te application on October 13, 2009. I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mi Jung Kim, A098 768 574 (BIA Sept. 19, 2014) A098 768 574 In removal proceedings, the respondent requested tat the Immigration Judge review de novo her initial For I-485, which was fled in January 2005, while she was still in a valid nonimmigrat sttus. The DHS fled a motion to preterit the application, argng that she did not have a visa imediately available to her at te time of her initial application ad tat her accrual of unlawl status renders her ineligible fr adjustment of status uder section 245( c) of the Act. The Immigration Judge concluded tat he is limited to reviewing the most recently denied adjustment of status application, not the initial application (l.J. at 4). He held that the most recent application was properly denied because the respondent is not cur ently in lawfl status ad has accrued a period of unawl presence that may not be waived under section 245(k) of te Act (I.J. at 4-5). On appeal, the respondent argues tat the Immigration Judge cited no legal authority fr his fnding that he must review te most recently denied 1-485 application. Furer, she agues that under 8 C.F.R. 1245.2(a)(5)(ii) te Immigration Judge should have reviewed her initial I-485 fled in 2005, which was properly fled, and should have considered it to be a renewed, continuing adjustent application rater tha a new application. According to te regulation, when an applicant renews an adjustent application in removal proceedings, te applicant does not need to meet the satutory requirement of section 245( c) of the Act [continuous lawfl status], or 1245.l(g) [visa availability], if, in fct, those requirements were met at te time te renewed application was initially fled wt the director." 8 C.F.R. 1245.2(a)(5)(ii). We agree with the respondent's appellate argument. We will remand the case fr the Immigration Judge to consider wheter the respondent ca beneft fom 8 C.F.R. 1245.2(a)(S)(ii). To beneft fom tis regulation, te respondent must establish tat she is "renewing" her adjustment application in removal proceedings. We have held that a application may be considered "renewed'' only when it is based on the sae fcts ad reviewed according to circumstances a they existed when the original application was fled. Matter of Laik, 17 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 1980); see also Matter of Huang, 16 I&N Dec. 362.1 (BIA 1978) (holding that when an alien renews a adjustment application in proceedings the resubmited application must be based on te same fcts ad circumstances as existed with te original application). We explained that a adjustment application will be treated as new, not renewed, ifte applicant was stattorily ineligible fr adjustment based on te circumstances as they existed when te application was originally denied by USCIS; ad if the present application is based on circumstaces which have occured since the denial. See also Brito v. Muksey, 521 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2008) (fr purposes of 8 C.F.R. 1245.2(a)(l)(ii), fnding that te Immigration Judge had no jurisdiction over aving alien's adjustment application because it was a new application, rather tha renewed, a it was predicated on a visa petition fled by a diferent United States citizen spouse). On remand, te Immigration Judge should mae specifc fndings of fct as to wheter the renewed application should be teated as a new application or a renewed one. In this case, the respondent's adjustent application was originally denied because she was fud inadmissible uder section 212(a)(S)(C) of the Act fr fng to submit the requisite certifcation. Te Immigration Judge determined that, despite te DHS' contary assertion, a visa was available to the respondent at the time as required by 8 C.F.R. 1245.l(g) (l.J. at 5 n.6). The respondent has provided a cerifcation. See Respondent's Pre-hearing Brief at Exhibit H. Unlike Laike and Huang, supra, there is no idication that te respondent was 2 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mi Jung Kim, A098 768 574 (BIA Sept. 19, 2014) A098 76.8 574 ineligible fr the visa classifcation sought. Moreover, the respondent was in a valid nonimmigrat status when the frst 1-485 was fled. Unlike Brito v. Muksey, supra, tere is no indicaton tat the resubmitted adjustment application was predicated on a new visa petition. Rater, her ineligibility fr adjustment was based on her inadmissibility under section 212(a) of te Act. We have long held tat an application fr adjustent of status is a continuing one, such tat "admissibility is deterined on the bais of te fcts ad the law at the time the application is fnally considered." Matter of Alarcon, 20 I&N Dec. 557, 562 (BIA 1992). Therefre, we do not consider the respondent's resubmited adjustent application as new solely because of a chage in circumstaces related to her admissibility. Fuher, nothing in the regulations indicates that an Immigation Judge's ordinay power and duty to receive evidence and adjudicate applications fr adjustent of status is diminished or restricted when the application is renewed i removal proceedings. Matter of Herrera Del Orden, 25 I&N Dec. 589, 593 (BIA 2011). Additionally, at the time of adjustent, te applicant must show the continued existence of a ofer of employment as set fr in te 1-140 ad must demonstate a intent to accept the ofer of employment. Tus, we fnd it necessa to remand te record to the Immigation Judge fr specifc fndings of fct to deterine whether the respondent's resubmitted adjustment application fom 2005 should be teated as a renewed application, whether she can show the continued existence of an ofer of employment as set frh in the I-140 and whether she can meet ay other eligibility requirements. As such, we need not address the respondent's remaining aguments on appeal. Accordingly, the fllowing orders ae entered. ORER: Te respondent's appeal is sustaned. FURTR ORDER: The record is remanded fr fher proceedings consistent with the fregoing opinion ad fr te entry of a new decision. 3 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t Cite as: Mi Jung Kim, A098 768 574 (BIA Sept. 19, 2014)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT 26 FEDER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK File No.: A098-768-574 In the Matter of: KIM, Mi Jung, Respondent. CHARGE: INA 237(a)(l)(B) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION TO PRETERMIT Remained in the United States Longer than Permitted APPLICATION: INA 245(a), Adjustment of Status ON BEHALF OF RSPONDENT Justin J. You, Esq. You & Associates 130 West 42n d Street, Suite 702 New York, New York 10036 ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT Dara Faith Reid, Assistant Chief Counsel DHS/ICE, Ofce of Chief Counsel 290 Broadway New York, New York 10278 DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE Mi Jung Kim ("Respondent'') seeks to adjust her status to that of a lawfl permanent resident ("LPR") based on an approved I-140 employment petition. The Department of Homeland Security ("the Department") moves to pretermit Respondent's application to adjust her status, arguing that she is ineligible fr that relief For the reasons that fllow, the Court grants the Department's motion to pretermit and issues a fnal order of removal. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Respondent is a fmale native and citizen of South Korea. [Exh. l .] She was admitted to the United States at New York, New York, as a nonimmigrant visitor on August 30, 2004, with permission to remain until February 28, 2005. Id. She remained beyond that date. I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t r
On September 10, 2007, the Depaent served Respondent with a Notice to Appear ("NTA"), chaging her as removable under IA 237(a)(l)(B). Id. At a hearing befre the Immigration Court, Respondent, through counsel, admitted the fctual allegations contained in the NT A and conceded the charge of removability. Removability has therefre been established based on Respondent's admissions. See INA 240(c)(3); 8 C.F.R. 1240.8, 1240.lO(c). South Korea was designated as the country of removal. See INA 24l(b)(2). From 2005 tough 2009, Respondent fled a total of fur Form 1-485 Applications to Adjust Status with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Respondent, a nurse, sought to adjust her status on the basis of on an approved Form 1- 140, Immigrant Petition fr Alien Worker, as a skilled worker or profssional under INA 203(b)(3)(A)(i). She fled her frst Form 1-485 on January 14, 2005, prior to the expiration of her nonimmigant visa. On February 24, 2005, USCIS requested that Respondent submit her required Visa Screen Certifcate, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 212. 15{e)(l). 1 On May 20, 2005, and September 27, 2005, Respondent requested additional time to fle this certifcate. On November 9, 2005, USCIS denied her frst I-485 application because she filed to provide the required certifcate. As a result, USCIS fund her inadmissible to the United States, and thus, ineligible to adjust status. See INA 212(a)(5)(C), 245(a). Respondent fled her second and third 1-485 applications on March 17, 2006, and October 30, 2006, respectively. USCIS denied these applications because she had filed to continuously maintain lawfl nonimmigrant status. See INA 245(c). USCIS frther determined that Respondent did not qualif fr a waiver under INA 245(k), because she filed to maintain her status fr more than the allowable 180 days. Respondent fled her furth 1-485 application on April 25, 2008. She obtained her Visa Screen Cerifcate in December 2008. On January 7, 2009, a diferent Immigration Judge terminated Respondent's removal proceedings to allow USCIS to adjudicate that most recent application. See IJ Order (Jan. 7, 2009). However, Respondent withdrew her furth 1-485 application on October 13, 2009. 2 In June 2011, the Department fled a motion to recalendar Respondent's proceedings, and the case was referred to the undersigned. On December 13, 2012, the Department fled a motion to pretermit Respondent's adjustment of status application. The issue befre the Court is whether, upon de nova review of Respondent's initial Form I-485, Respondent may adjust her status. At the close of the last hearing, both parties agreed that Respondent was not seeking any frms of relief other than adjustment of status. 1 A "Visa Screen Certifcate" refrs to a certifcate fom the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools. See INA 212(a)(5)(C). 2 There was some confsion during the proceedings regarding a USCIS clerical error. Indeed, at one point USCIS sent Respondent a letter identifying her as an LPR. However, afer the Court directed the Department to produce evidence showing whether this letter was issued in error, it ofered a letter refecting that Respondent is not now, and has never been, an LPR. 2 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t II. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS: BASIC STANDARDS The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States may be adjusted to that of an alien lawflly admitted fr permanent residence if she: ( 1) applies fr adjustment; (2) is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States fr permanent residence; and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to her at the time her application is fled. INA 245(a). If eligibility is established, adjustment of status may be granted in the exercise of discretion. Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970). The alien bears the burden of establishing eligibility fr adjustment of status and demonstrating that relief is merited in the exercise of discretion. See Matter of Ibrahim, 18 l&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981 ). For employment-based applicants, IA 245(c) places frther restrictions on the classes of aliens who are eligible to adjust their status. Pursuant to IA 245(c)(2), an alien "who is in unlawfl immigration status on the date of fling the application fr adjustment of status or who has filed (other than through no fult of her own or fr technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States" is ineligible to adjust her status to that of an LPR. See also Matter of L-K, 23 l&N Dec. 677 (BIA 2004). However, under INA 245(k), the restrictions contained in IA 245(c)(2) are inapplicable to cerain employment based immigrants, including, inter alia, skilled workers and profssionals under IA 203(b)(3). Section 245(k) states that, notwithstanding sections (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), an alien who is eligible to adjust under paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) may have her unlawfl presence waived if: l) on the date of fling a application fr adjustment of status, she is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission; and 2) subsequent to that lawfl admission, she has not, inter alia, faled to maintain continuously lawfl status fr an aggregate period exceeding 180 days. The 180-day counting period begins on the date on which the alien's status expires, is revoked, or is violated fllowing the alien's most recent admission. See USCIS HQDOMO 70/23. 1-P AD06-07 memorandum on Applicability of Section 245(k) to Certain Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Applications fled under section 245(a) of the INA. The counting of this 180-day period ceases on the date USCIS receives a properly fled application. Id. Moreover, when a frst adjustment application is denied and a second application is fled, the period after which the alien's nonimmigrant status expired and during which the frst application was pending counts against the 180-day period. Id. If USCIS ha denied an adjustment application, the alien can obtain frther review only by renewing the application during removal proceedings, whereupon the Immigration Judge can conduct de novo review. See 8 C.F.R. 1245.2(a)(5)(ii). At the time of renewal of the application, the alien does not need to meet the statutory requirements of INA 245(c) or 8 C.F.R. 245. l(g), 3 if those requirements were met at the time the renewed application was initially fled with USCIS. k 4 Respondent argues that because she was in lawfl status at the 3 8 C.F.R. 245.l(g) requires an immigrant visa be available at the time of fling the adjustment application. 4 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(ii) provides: "At the time of renewal of the application, an applicant does not need to meet the statutory requirement of section 245(c) of the Act, or 245. l(g), if, in fct, those requirements were met at the time the renewed application was initially fled with the director." 3 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t time she fled her earliest Form 1-485, INA 245(c) does not prevent her fom adjusting her status. III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT A. Arguments of the Parties Respondent seeks to renew befre the Court the frst 1-485 application she fled with USCIS in January 2005. She argues that INA 245(c) does not render her ineligible fr adjustment of status because she was in a valid nonimmigrant status at the time that initial application was fled. Specifcally, she points to the language of 8 C.F.R. 1245.2(a)(S)(ii), and contends that "if an applicant overcame all INA 245(c) bars fr adjustment of status at the time of the initial fling, then at a de novo review of the same application, the applicant does not need to once again meet or satisf INA 245(c) at a later date." See Respondent's Response, received January 10, 2013, at 5. Respondent argues in the alterative that she qualifes fr INA 245(k) relief because users miscalculated her aggregate period of unlawfl presence when it denied her second and third applications. See Respondent's Memorandum of Law, received July 6, 2012, at 3-5. Lastly, she suggests that her initial application was properly fled with users notwithstanding her filure to provide a Visa Screen Certifcate because 8 C.F.R. 212.15(n)(3) 5 requires only that the certifcate be provided at the time of adjustment. The Department contends that Respondent is ineligible fr adjustment of status because she did not have a visa immediately available to her at the time she fled her initial 1-485 application. See The Department's Motion, received December 13, 2013. The Department frther argues that Respondent is currently ineligible fr adjustment of status befre the Court due to her accrual of unlawfl status pursuant to INA 245(c). Id. Lastly, it characterizes Respondent's argument that the Court is permitted to conduct a de novo review of her initial application as "an illogical conclusion that would bring about incongruous results" allowing her to "maintain status into perpetuity." Id. at 4. 8. Analysis Respondent asks the Court to review de novo her frst denied 1-485 application. However, the Court is limited in its review to the most recently denied application. That latter application was properly denied because Respondent is not now in lawfl status and has accrued a period of unlawul presence that may not be waived. Even if the Court could review Respondent's frst denied application, that application was properly denied because Respondent did not present the required Visa Screen Certifcate. To the extent Respondent asks the Court to essentially nunc pro tune the Visa Screen Certifcate to the frst 1-485 application, the Court fnds no authority to do so. 5 8 C.F.R. 2 l 2.15(n)(3) provides: HAn alien described in paragraph (a) of this section, who is coming to the United States as an immigrant or is applying fr adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1255), to perfrm labor in a health care occupation described in paragraph (c) of this section, must submit the certifcate or certifed statement as provided in this section at the time of visa issuance or adjustment of status." 4 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t 1. The Court Reviews Only the Most Recently Denied I-485 Aplication The Cour fnds that it may only review Respondent's most recently denied I-485 application. 6 While Respondent is correct that she need only meet the requirements of INA 245(c) at the time her renewed application was initially fled with USCIS, the issue here is that Respondent has fled multiple I-485 applications with USCIS. Respondent wa in lawfl status until November 9, 2005, when her frst I-485 application was denied. Her lawfl status was then terminated, ad she bega to accrue unlawfl status at that point. As a result, her unlawfl presence began to accrue on February 28, 2005, and continued though Mach 17, 2006, when she fled her second adjustment application. Therefre, she accrued unlawfl presence in excess of a year, rendering her ineligible to adjust status. 7 INA 245(c)(2); See USCIS HQDOMO 70/23.1-P AD06-07 at 5-6. Moreover, Respondent cannot utilize the provisions of INA 245(k), as the period she was out of status fr exceeds the allowable 180 days. As a result, the Cour fnds that IA 245(c) renders Respondent ineligible to adjust status. 2. In the Alterative, Respondent's First 1-485 Aplication was Properly Denied Even if the Court were to review de novo Respondent's January 2005 1-485 application, that application was properly denied because she did not present the requisite Visa Screen Certifcate despite several extensions to allow her to do so. See 8 C.F.R. 212. l 5(e)(I ). Respondent is correct that under 8 C.F.R. 1245.2(a)(5)(ii), she is not required to meet the requirements of INA 245(c) or 8 C.F.R. 245.l(g) at the time of renewal befre the Court if those requirements were qet at the time the application was initially fled. However, she remains inadmissible under INA 2 l 2(a)(5)(C) fr her filure to submit the requisite certifcate. In fct, she did not obtain this certifcate until December 2008, well afer she fled her furth 1-485 application. Therefre, she was not eligible to adjust her status. See INA 212(a)(5)(C); 245(a). 3. The Court May Not Give Nunc Pro Tune Efect to the Visa Screen Certifcate Respondent essentially argues that because she was lawflly present at the time she fled her frst application, and obtained the required Visa Screen Certifcate while her furh application was pending, she is eligible to adjust her status. The Court fnds no authority to support this argument. To fnd that Respondent is eligible to adjust, the Court would have to give retroactive, or nunc pro tue, efect to the Visa Screen Certifcate that Respondent obtained 6 The Cour notes that in its motion, the Department recites inaccurate fcts with regard to Respondent's initial application. Specifcally, it states that her Form I-485 was denied due to her filure to possess a CUtTently available visa. However, users in fct denied her frst adjustment application fr filue to provide a Visa Screen Cerifcate, as discussed above. The Visa Bulletin fr January 2005 indicates that Respondent's prefrence category, EB3 Skilled Worker, was current when fled. See The Respondent's Response, received January 10, 2013, Tab B. 7 Unpublished BIA decisions provide frher support fr the proposition that unlawfl presence begins to accrue when an alien's nonimmigrant status expires afer her frst adjustment application is denied. See Matter of Sarmiento, A097-867-848 (BIA Dec. 22, 2010) (unpublished); Matter of Noh, A096-148-950 (BIA Oct. 18, 2010) (unpublished). 5 I m m i g r a n t
&
R e f u g e e
A p p e l l a t e
C e n t e r
|
w w w . i r a c . n e t years afer she fled her initial I-485 application. The BIA has recognized instances where nunc pro tune relief may be appropriate. See e.g., Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 63 (BIA 1979) (involving a grant of nunc pro tune permission to reapply fr admission afer deportation); see also Matter of G-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132, 1139 (BIA 1999) ("Thus, Congress and the Attorey General have entrusted us with considerable latitude to intervene in individual cases where fndamental firess and the interests of justice so warrant."); 8 C.F.R 1003.lO(b). However, such equitable relief is limited to circumstances in which it is required to cure some procedural defct tat rendered Respondent ineligible fr relief. Here, there was no procedural defect. Rather, Respondent had the opporunity to adjust her status when she fled her frst I-485 application, but could not do so because she filed to obtain the required Visa Screen Cerifcate. Having filed to obtain this certifcate, she proceeded to fle several new applications fr adjustment of status, and each was properly denied. Under these circumstances, the Cour fnds no basis to provide nunc pro tune relief. Therefre, the Court grants the Department's motion to pretermit her application. Because Respondent seeks no other relief, the Court orders her removed to South Korea. Afer a caefl review of the record, the fllowing orders are entered: ORERS IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Deparment's motion to pretermit Respondent's application fr adjustment of status is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that Respondent be removed fom the United States to the South Korea on the sustained charge contained in the Notice to Appear. 3 k /t r Date: 6 J se B. Christensen U.S. Immigration Judge I m m i g r a n t