Filed: May 15, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-15-2009 Butt v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2680 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Butt v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1361. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1361 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of t
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-15-2009 Butt v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2680 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Butt v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1361. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1361 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of th..
More
Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-15-2009
Butt v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2680
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Butt v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1361.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1361
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2680
___________
MOHAMMAD SUHAIL BUTT;
MUSTAFA BUTT,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A98 493 362 and A98 493 363
Immigration Judge: Frederic Leeds
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 12, 2009
Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 15, 2009)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Mohammad Suhail Butt (“Mohammad”) and his son, Mohammad Mustafa Butt
(“Mustafa”) petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”
or “Board”), which denied their motion to reconsider the Board’s previous order
dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s final removal order. We will grant
the petition for review as to Mustafa, and remand for further proceedings. We will deny
the petition as to Mohammad.
Mohammad is a native of India and citizen of Pakistan. Mustafa is a native of Iraq
and citizen of Pakistan. They entered the United States in 1999. Mohammad entered
with false documents and was placed in removal proceedings because he did not have
valid documents. A.R. 119. Mustafa was placed in removal proceedings because he was
present in the U.S. without having been admitted or paroled. Both father and son
conceded removability but requested continuances based on pending labor certification
requests. On September 26, 2006, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied a final request for
a continuance, noting that he had already granted a continuance that had “gone on for
almost a year and a half” and that no labor certifications had been approved. The IJ
ordered the Butts removed to Pakistan.
On January 30, 2008, the BIA dismissed the Butts’ appeal, finding that the IJ had
not abused his discretion in denying a continuance, as no labor certification had been
approved, and the two had not presented any evidence that either was the beneficiary of
an approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140), nor had they submitted copies
of applications for adjustment of status.
On February 27, 2008, the Butts filed a Motion to Reconsider, which the BIA also
considered as a motion to reopen. The motion stated that Mustafa Butt was the
2
beneficiary of an approved alien labor certification application, and that he had a pending
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) and had filed an Application for Adjustment
of Status (I-485). The motion also stated that Mohammad Butt would be eligible for
adjustment of status “upon approval of his presently pending Application for Labor
Certification ... .”
The BIA denied the motion as a motion to reconsider, as the Butts had not pointed
to any legal or factual error in the BIA’s prior decision. The BIA also denied the motion
to reopen, stating that the Butts had provided no evidence that Mustafa was the
beneficiary of an approved labor certification, and had provided no evidence of an
approved employment-based visa petition for either respondent. The BIA stated that the
evidence consisted only of filing receipts and completed application forms and did not
show a “reasonable likelihood” that they would be able to establish adjustment of status
should be granted. The Butts filed a timely petition for review.
In order to succeed on a motion to reopen,1 the alien must, among other things,
establish a prima facie case for the relief sought. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 563 (3d
Cir. 2004). We review the BIA’s denial of such a motion under an abuse of discretion
standard.
Id. at 562. In this case, Petitioners assert that they satisfied the reopening
requirements through the labor petition process for adjustment of status to permanent
1
The only possible merit to Petitioners’ motion is as a motion to reopen. As the BIA
properly noted, the Butts did not point out any error of fact or law in the prior BIA
decision, so it fails as a motion to reconsider.
3
residency. This process involves three general steps: (1) the employer files a labor
certification application with the Department of Labor; (2) the employer then files with
the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) both the approved labor certification as
well as an I-140 alien worker petition; and (3) the alien receives a visa number and finally
files an I-485 application to adjust status with the DHS. See, e.g., Khan v. Attorney
General, 448 F.3d 226, 228 n.2 (3d Cir. 2006).
According to Petitioners, Mustafa is potentially eligible for adjustment of status
because he has an approved labor certification and has pending an I-140 petition and an
I-485 application. Because the labor certification application filed by his employer had a
processing date of April 30, 2001, Mustafa is apparently “grandfathered” under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(i)(1)(B)(ii).2 In Mohammad’s case, he only has a “pending” labor certification
request.
In Khan, this Court held that an IJ did not abuse his discretion where he denied a
request for a continuance based on the alien’s wife’s pending labor certification
application. The Court held that because any relief was speculative, Khan could not show
that he was prima facie eligible for adjustment of status and the IJ thus did not abuse his
discretion in denying the request. Khan, 448 F.3d at 234. Mohammad’s motion to reopen
2
The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763,
(“LIFE Act”), enabled certain aliens to remain in the United States while seeking to
adjust their status. It had a sunset date of April 30, 2001 for the filing of qualifying
petitions or applications, for example, Department of Labor certifications. INA
§ 245(i)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1)(B). See also Khan, 448 F.3d at 228-29 & n.2.
4
is similarly based on purely speculative relief–he does not have an approved labor
petition. The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen.
As for Mustafa, the BIA stated that Mustafa had not provided any evidence of his
assertion that he was the beneficiary of an approved labor certification. However,
Mustafa attached to his motion to reopen a page from an Application for Permanent
Employment Certification, which appears to be “certified” by a Government official in
Section “O.” A.R. 11. This appears to be an approved labor certification. Mustafa also
presented evidence that he has pending an I-140 and an I-485. See pages 13 and 14 of
162 of the A.R. Thus, it is unclear why the BIA stated that Mustafa had not presented
evidence of an approved labor certification.
We express no opinion as to whether the approved certification would be sufficient
to cause the BIA to decide to reopen, but the matter should be remanded to allow the BIA
to evaluate the evidence in the first instance.3 We will therefore grant the petition for
review as to Mustafa, and remand for further proceedings.
3
Mustafa’s motion also had attached a “Notice of Case Closure” which postdates the
labor certification approval date. It is not clear what effect this “notice” has on his
application. See A.R. 14.
5
