Martin v. INS
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
March 7, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2010
DENNIS ALEXANDER MARTIN,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
____________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Linda A. Cristello on brief for appellant. __________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Petitioner Dennis Martin is a native __________
and citizen of Jamaica who legally entered this country as an
immigrant in June 1988. He was convicted in April 1992 in a
Massachusetts Superior Court of possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute. The INS then issued an Order to Show
Cause in July 1992 based on his conviction of an aggravated
felony.
An immigration judge (IJ) held a deportation
hearing in April 1994 at which petitioner was represented by
an attorney. Deportability was conceded and Jamaica
designated as the country for deportation purposes. Counsel
then asked for a continuance of 15 months so that petitioner
could accumulate the seven years required for an application
for discretionary relief under 212(c), 8 U.S.C.
1182(c).1 Petitioner would reach the seven-year mark in 1
June 1995.
Although acknowledging the presence of hardship --
petitioner has a stammer which he alleges cannot be treated
in Jamaica and his mother who lives here is blind -- the IJ
____________________
1Section 212(c) provides in relevant part: 1
Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent
resident [sic] who temporarily proceeded
abroad voluntarily and not under an order
of deportation, and who are returning to
a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven
consecutive years, may be admitted in the
discretion of the Attorney General. . . .
-2-
determined that there was no cause to grant a continuance.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily dismissed
the appeal when counsel failed to file a brief, and this
petition for review ensued.
Petitioner contends that the IJ should have granted
a continuance so that he could apply for a 212(c)
discretionary waiver. An IJ may grant a motion for a
continuance "for good cause shown." 8 C.F.R. 3.29. We
review the denial of such a motion for abuse of discretion.
See Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1988). In ___ ______ ___
support of his position on review, petitioner first argues
that as a statute of repose and forgiveness, 212(c) is
liberally construed in favor of aliens. He then analogizes
his situation to a case in which the BIA held that a motion
to reopen should be granted where an alien has filed an
application for adjustment of status contemporaneously with a
visa petition. See Matter of Garcia, 16 I. & N. Dec. 653 ___ ________________
(BIA 1978).
In Garcia, an IJ had ordered the deportation of an ______
alien as an overstay. The alien then moved to reopen the
proceedings so that he could apply for an adjustment of
status pursuant to 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255. Ordinarily, the
INS required a prima facie showing that, in addition to the
filing of an application for an adjustment, (1) the alien was
eligible to receive an immigrant visa and was admissible to
-3-
the U.S. for permanent residence, and (2) an immigrant visa
was immediately available to him or her at the time the ___________ _________
application was filed. In the case of an adjustment
application simultaneously filed with a visa petition, the
INS would deny the application because the visa, by
definition, would not be immediately available.
However, an amendment to the INA changed the provision
for dating the adjustment application. As a result, the INS
amended the regulations specifically to permit the
simultaneous filing of an application for adjustment of
status and a visa petition. In Garcia, the BIA recognized ______
that to continue the practice of requiring immediately-
available visas would nullify the new simultaneous filing
provision. To give proper effect to this provision, then,
the BIA decided that it would generally reopen deportation
proceedings unless (1) ineligibility was apparent on the
record, or (2) the adjustment application would be denied on
statutory grounds or as a matter of discretion, even were the
visa petition approved. In this way, the adjustment
application would be retained until the INS ruled on the visa
petition.
We find Garcia inapposite. First, to be entitled ______
to reopening, the alien's visa petition must be prima facie
approvable. Petitioner's attempt to make this showing in
regard to his application for a 212(c) waiver fails.
-4-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Martin v. INS, (1st Cir. 1996).
Martin v. INS (Martin v. INS) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Nirmal Singh Dhangu v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
812 F.2d 455 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Mario Antonio Portillo Baires v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
856 F.2d 89 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Jose Gouveia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
980 F.2d 814 (First Circuit, 1992)
MARIN
16 I. & N. Dec. 581 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1978)
GARCIA
16 I. & N. Dec. 653 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1978)