Case: 12-10208 Date Filed: 10/10/2012 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10208
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A097-454-848
ASHRAF ALI BAIG,
SAMEENA FATHIMA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 10, 2012)
Before PRYOR, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ashraf Ali Baig and Sameena Fathima, natives and citizens of India,
Case: 12-10208 Date Filed: 10/10/2012 Page: 2 of 2
petition for review of the order that affirmed the denial of their motion for a
continuance. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the finding of the
immigration judge that Baig’s future eligibility for an adjustment of status did not
constitute good cause to continue his and Fathima’s removal proceeding. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29. We deny the petition.
The immigration judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the motion
to continue. To be eligible for an adjustment of status, an alien must be “eligible
to receive an immigration visa” and the visa must be “immediately available” to
the alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A), (B). Baig has an approved third-preference
employment-based visa petition with a priority date of October 20, 2003, but when
the immigration judge considered Baig’s motion, visas were available only to
aliens with a priority date of October 1, 2001, or earlier. Notably, when the Board
issued its decision, third-preference employment-based visas were available to
aliens with a priority date of July 22, 2002, or earlier. Because of the indefinite
wait that Baig faced to obtain an immigrant visa, no good cause existed to
continue the removal proceeding. See Chacku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1281,
1286 (11th Cir. 2008); Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1363–64 (11th
Cir. 2006).
We DENY Baig and Fathima’s petition.
2