Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Name:ESTRELLADO,GRACE
A 089-056-676
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
D CtVVU
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Malphrus, Garry D.
Userteam: Docket
U.S.-Department of Justice
Date:
NOV 19 2014
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Daniel P. Harilon, Esquire
APPLICATION:
Adjustment of status
The respondent appeals from the Immigration Judge's decision dated January 23, 2013,
finding her removable as charged, and denying her application for adjustment of status under
section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). The respondent's
appeal will be dismissed in part, and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.
We review for clear error the findings of fact, including the determination of credibility,
made by the Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). We review de novo all other issues,
including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, and issues of discretion.
8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
.
The Immigration Judge denied the respondent's request for a continuance and pretermitted
her application for adjustment of status because she did not have a visa currently available (I.J. at
4-6). The Immigration Judge found that the respondent could not utilize the January 10, 2006
priority date from her original I-140 visa petition, and that the priority date of her subsequent
I-140, which is January 3, 2011, was not current and was unlikely to become so for several years
(l.J. at 4-6). It is uncontested that the respondent's original I-140 visa petition wa5 withdrawn by
her employer on June 26, 2006 (I.J. at 5). The record also contains a notice of revocation from
the USCIC dated August 31, 2006 (Respondent's Brief, filed August 31, 2012, at Tab H).
We affirm the Immigration Judge's conclusion that the respondent may not utilize the
priority date from her original 1-140 visa petition because it was withdrawn and the USCIS
revoked it (I.J. at 5; Respondent' Brief at 5-7). Relying on 8 C.F.R. 204.5(e), the respondent
contends that she can retain the January 10, 2006, priority date from the previously approved
employment petition (Respondent's Brief at 6; Tr. at 21). Unfortunately for the respondent,
8 C.F.R. 204.5(e) provides that "[a] petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act
will not confer a priority date.'' As the USCIS revoked the original visa petition, 8 C.F.R.
204.S(e) does not permit the retention of that visa petition's January 10, 2006 priority date.
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1155. Moreover, the Immigration Judge did not err in denying
a continuance given the DHS's opposition and the remoteness of the respondent's January 3,
2011 priority date at the time of the hearing. Matter ofHashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).
Nevertheless, during the pendency of the respondent's appeal, her January 3, 2011 priority
date has become current. We take administrative notice of the fact that the current State
Department Visa Bulletin provides June 1, 2012, as the cutoff date for 3rd preference
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER: The respondent's appeal is dismissed in part, and the record is remanded to the
Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the
entry of a new decision.
1 Available at http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/bulletin/2015/visa
bulletin-for-november-2014.html.
2
On appeal, the respondent argues that she remains eligible for adjustment of status under the
"no fault exception" at section 245(c) of the Act (Respondent's Brief at 8-11). The Immigration
Judge did not address the applicability of section 245(c), nor did she make any findings of fact
on such issue. As the Immigration Judge did not reach these issues, and we are remanding the
record, we decline to address the respondent's arguments.
January 23,
A089-056-676
2013
In the Matter o f
RE SP ONDENT
CHARGE S:
APP L I CA T I ONS:
ON BEHA L F OF RE SPONDEN T:
O N BEHALF OF O H S:
MARK C.
EVA L.
CARRA S C O
TOMINE S
File:
Se curity (OH S)
2009.
with the
See Exhibit 1.
Immigration
Respondent admits as
Van couver,
July 25,
2007 as a non
of the A ct, in
Based on
and
o f the A ct.
A089-056-676
o f the A ct.
January 23,
2013
Nationality A ct (A ct or INA) .
Immigration and
At a
prior hearing the Court advised respo ndent that it did not
June 28th,
2013,
it should
as the Court
By motion dated
2013,
A089-056-676
By order
as respondent
for that
January 23,
2013
reason.
no
joint agreement
According to
respondent's
However,
2011.
This is approval as a
skilled worker or professional under Section 203 (b) (3) (A) (i) ( I I)
of the Act.
it
appears that visa numbe rs are o nly current for individuals who
have a priority date before February 1,
A089-056-676
2007.
Looking forward
January 23,
2013
discretion,
it is
immediately available,
that she
2006.
whereas
Although respondent
makes arguments that the prior January 2006 priority date should
be captured as a matter of equity, the Court finds that it has
no authority to do so under the law.
The
Immigration Court is
A089-056-676
January 23,
2013
2007.
it appears that
And therefore,
pr ior ity date cannot be used to make respondent's imm igrant v isa
currently ava ilable to her.
As such,
conv inc ing ev idence that she has the means to depart the Un ited
States and intends to do so.
Act.
See
of the
Therefore,
A089-056-676
January 23,
2013
cert if icat ion from a new employer, the Court f inds it does not
ORDERS
denied.
IT I S FUR THE R O RDERED that respondent's request for
voluntary departure in lieu of removal without expense to the
United States Government be granted.
IT I S FU R T HE R O RDERED that respondent shall post a
voluntary departure bond in the amount of $500 with the
Department of Homeland Security on or before January 30,
2013.
2013.
A089-056-676
January 23,
2013