Andoval Luna v. Mukasey
Opinion
Opinion
BACKGROUND
The former Immigration and Naturalization Service charged Daniel Sandoval-Luna with removability under sec- tion 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). On December 18, 2002, Sandoval-Luna appeared with counsel before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and conceded his removability. The IJ granted a six-month continuance so counsel could attempt to establish that Sandoval-Luna was eligible for cancellation of removal.
On June 18, 2003, Sandoval-Luna appeared for the second time before the IJ. He admitted that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he lacked a qualifying rela- tive under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Sandoval-Luna’s coun- sel asked for another continuance to allow time for the release of new regulations under the Child Status Protection Act (“CSPA”), hoping to assert that Sandoval-Luna was eligible for adjustment of status as a derivative beneficiary of his father’s labor certification application. The CSPA regulations had not been released at the time of the hearing, and the labor certification application had not been processed. The IJ denied the request for a further continuance.