09-3790 Pawlowska v. Holder

Listen to this article

Immigration
Voluntary departure; continuance

Where an alien participated in a fraudulent immigration scheme, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of her request for a continuance to pursue adjustment of status.

“Pawlowska argues that we have jurisdiction under the exception in Subhan. There, the petitioner was seeking to adjust his status and requested a continuance to allow him to obtain necessary labor certifications, but the IJ denied the continuance without explanation. We held that the decision could be reviewed because the IJ failed to ‘giv[e] a reason consistent with the [adjustment of status] statute,’ which effectively precluded the petitioner from pursuing adjustment of status. Subhan, 383 F.3d at 595. Here, in contrast, the IJ clearly gave a reason consistent with the statute for denying the continuance-namely, that he would ultimately deny adjustment of status as a discretionary matter because of Pawlowska’s misconduct in conjunction with Operation Durango. See Ceta v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 639, 647 (7th Cir. 2008) (‘[W]e have explained that “foot-dragging, criminal activity, or [an IJ’s determination as to the ultimate] lack of merit” of an adjustment application constitute valid reasons for denying a continuance request.’). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the continuance decision.”

Petition Dismissed.

09-3790 Pawlowska v. Holder

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Evans, J.

Full Text