Gerardo Carreon-Navarez v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-10948 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ Nos. 17-10948 & 17-12968 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-787-845 GERARDO CARREON-NAVAREZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petitions for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 30, 2018) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In this consolidated case, Gerardo Carreon-Navarez appeals several actions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) within his removal proceeding. Carreon argues that: (1) the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the decision by Case: 17-10948 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 2 of 7 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) to deny his request for a continuance to allow him to marry and adjust his status; (2) the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to remand the case back to the IJ and his later motion to reopen his case; and (3) the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand and motion to reopen violated his right to procedural due process. After thorough review, we dismiss his petitions. We review de novo our subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for review. Butalova v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 768 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 2014). First, we lack jurisdiction over Carreon’s claim that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion for a continuance. It is well established that we lack jurisdiction to consider a claim that is moot, and must dismiss it. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001). A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live,” the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, or events that occur subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit or appeal deprive a court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief. Id. at 1335-36. The record here shows that Carreon initially sought a continuance to allow him to get married, since the fact that he was unmarried precluded him from seeking adjustment of status. In other words, the purpose of the requested continuance was to allow the IJ to consider his marriage in deciding the question of removability. By the time Carreon was before the BIA appealing the denial of his 2 Case: 17-10948 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 3 of 7 request for a continuance, he was married. Nonetheless, the BIA concluded that the marriage alone did not change the fact that Carreon was removable and ineligible for any relief, because he had failed to establish that his marriage was bona fide and that he was eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility based on extreme hardship to his wife. As a result, the question of whether allowing a continuance for Carreon to get married would have changed the result of his removal proceeding is no longer “live,” and we can grant him no meaningful relief. Thus, we dismiss this issue in the petition as moot. See id. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals