Ashraf Ali Baig, et al v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 12-10208 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10208 Date Filed: 10/10/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-10208 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
