Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Anil Kumar Ramchandani, an Indian national, was admitted to the United States as an “alien in transit” on May 11, 1997. When he did not leave the country on June 10 of that year, he was served on Oct. 24, 2002, with a notice to appear at the Immigration and Naturalization Service for removal proceedings. Ramchandani did not see an immigration judge until June 30, 2003, after getting three continuances. He asked for another continuance so that he could get a labor certificate, and so that Lisa O’Hanlon, the woman he married three days before the hearing, could fill at the necessary marriage-based visa petition on Ramchandani’s behalf. The IJ denied his request for a continuance and ordered Ramchandani removed. Ramchandani appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before the appeal was heard, Ramchandani asked to reopen the removal proceedings based on this wife’s now completed, but unapproved visa petition. The petition stated that Ramchandani and O’Hanlon were actually married on July 8, that is, after the removal hearing on June 30, not before. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of continuance and denied his motion to reopen. HOLDING:Denied. The court reviews the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of a continuance. A continuance for Ramchandani to get a labor certificate was not warranted, the court says, Ramchandani claimed that he should have been allowed time for the labor certificate to be approved by the Texas Workforce Commission, but the court points out that even Ramchandani’s attorney acknowledged that Ramchandani’s labor certificate was not filed prior to a particular sunset date. Nor was a continuance warranted for Ramchandani to pursue a marriage-based visa. Ramchandani and O’Hanlon married after the hearing, but even assuming that they married before the hearing, a continuance need not have been granted. First, O’Hanlon had not filed a visa petition on Ramchandani’s behalf before the hearing. Then, Ramchandani married O’Hanlon while his exclusion proceedings were already underway. “We cannot conclude that Ramchandani’s bare testimony that he married a U.S. citizen a few days before his hearing-unsupported by a visa petition, an adjustment application, or by any evidence indicating he had married in good faith-amounted to a showing of good cause so as to warrant a continuance.” The court then upholds the BIA’s decision not to reopen the removal proceedings. The motion did not comply with applicable regulations because it did not include the necessary supporting documentations. Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security opposed the motion, and under other regulations, the BIA may not grant motions to reopen based on marriages entered into after the commencement of deportation or exclusion proceeds opposed by DHS. OPINION:Benavides, J.; Higginbotham, Benavides and Dennis, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.