04-6142-ag To Be Argued By:

CAROLYN A. IKARI

=========================================

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Docket No. 04-6142-ag

BERNABE JUSTO BORJA-ARICHABLA,

Petitioner,

-vs-

ALBERTO R. GONZALES,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

========================================

BRIEF FOR ALBERTO R. GONZALES

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

======================================== KEVIN J. OCONNOR United States Attorney District of Connecticut

CAROLYN A. IKARI Assistant United States AttorneyWILLIAM J. NARDINIAssistant United States Attorney (of counsel)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Statement of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Statement of Issues Presented for Review . . . . . . . . xiii

Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. Borjas Entry into the United States . . . . . . . . . 4

B. Borjas Original Round of Removal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

C. Borjas Motion To Reopen and Applicationfor Adjustment to Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

D. Borjas Removal Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Legal Argument By Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Documentary Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Borjas Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

E. The Immigraton Judges Decision . . . . . . . . . . 9

F. The BIAs Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Summary of Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

ii

Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

I. The Board of Immigration Appeals Properly Determined That Borja Was Ineligible forAdjustment of Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A. Relevant Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

B. Governing Law and Standard of Review . . . . 14

1. Voluntary Departure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Motions To Reopen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. Adjustment of Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. The Exceptional Circumstances Exception To the Voluntary DeparturePenalties Statute Has Been Repealed . . . . 20

2. The Filing of a Motion To Reopen Does Not Automatically Toll the Voluntary Departure Period . . . . . . . . . . . 22

iii

a. The Court Should Not Impose a TollingProvision Contrary to the StatutoryText and the BIAs ReasonableInterpretaton of That Text . . . . . . . . . . 23

b. Even If Tolling Were Available, Petitioner Cannot Benefit From It in Light of His Failure To Request Relief From His Voluntary DepartureObligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

II. Alternatively, the Immigration Judge Properly Rejected Borjas Applicaton for Adjustment of Status Because It Was Deficient on Its Face . . 33

A. Relevant Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

B. Governing Law and Standard of Review . . . . 33

1. Labor-Based Adjustment of Status . . . . . . 33

2. Scope of Review and Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

C. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Certification per Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C)

Addendum

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

PURSUANT TO BLUE BOOK RULE 10.7, THE GOVERNMENTS CITATION OF

CASES DOES NOT INCLUDE CERTIORARI DENIED DISPOSITIONS THAT ARE

M ORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD .

Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) . . . . . . 16

Alimi v. Ashcroft, 391 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 33

American Land Title Assn. v. Clarke, 968 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir.2005) . . . . . . . . . . 24, 26, 28

Ballenilla-Gonzalez v. INS, 546 F.2d 515 (2d Cir. 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2006), reh. and reh. en banc denied, 458 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1874 (2007) . . . . 24, 25, 26

v

Barrios v. Attorney General, 399 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Barroso v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Bocova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 257 (1st Cir.2005), amended on pet. for rehg., No. 02-4992(L), slip op. (2d Cir. May 24, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 33

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) . . . . . . . . 18, 30

Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500 (4th Cir. 2006) . . . . 16, 22, 23, 25 26,

Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Firstland International, Inc. v. U.S. INS, 377 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 35

Hadayat v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

vi

Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Iavorski v. U.S. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

In re Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399 (BIA 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

In re Zmijewska, 24 I. & N. Dec. 87 (BIA 2007), on remand from Zmijewska v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . 13, 21, 22, 29

INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Iouri v. Ashcroft, No. 02-4992(L), __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 1512420 (2d Cir. May 24, 2007) . . . . . . . . . 13, 23, 27, 32, 33

Joseph v. Landon, 679 F.2d 113 (7th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

vii

Kanivets v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Khan v. Attorney General, 448 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 36

Liberty Fund, Inc. v. Chao, 394 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Lin v. United States Dept of Justice, 428 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Li Hua Lin v. United States Dept of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 39

Liu v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 455 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2006)on remand In re Y-L-,

24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (BIA 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Lopez-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 650 (7th Cir.2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Mardones v. McElroy, 197 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Matter of Perez Vargas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 829 (BIA 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

viii

Matter of Shaar, 21 I. & N. Dec. 541 (BIA 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Naeem v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

National Labor Relations Board v. Wyman-GordonCo., 394 U.S. 759 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Niam v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 316 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Shaar v. INS, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . 19, 24, 28

Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Singh v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 22, 26

Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32

ix

Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176 (9th C