Ashraf Abdulkarim-Ali Alkotof v. U.S. Attorney General, 106 F.4th 1289

Ashraf Abdulkarim-Ali Alkotof, a Yemeni citizen, overstayed his U.S. visa and was placed in removal proceedings.
After marrying two different U.S. citizens, he sought adjustment of status based on approved I-130 petitions; both were ultimately revoked, with the latter revoked due to a prior finding of marriage fraud.
Alkotof requested administrative closure or continuance of his removal case to pursue the appeal of the revoked I-130, adjustment of status, and a pending U-Visa petition, all of which the IJ declined, citing ineligibility and administrative inefficiency after multiple prior continuances.
He filed a motion to remand before the BIA to pursue cancellation of removal based on changed family circumstances, specifically hardship to his U.S. citizen children (one with autism).
The BIA denied the motion to remand, upheld the denial of administrative closure/continuance, and ultimately ordered removal. Alkotof subsequently petitioned for review in federal court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over motion to remand for cancellation of removal	BIA's denial violated due process; IJ should adjudicate eligibility for cancellation first	Alkotof not eligible; BIA discretion	No jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation/remand
Administrative closure or continuance	Due process violated by denying opportunity to await collateral immigration relief	No prejudice; eligibility lacked; delay excessive	No abuse of discretion; Alkotof not prejudiced, relief not likely or timely

Chacku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing motions to remand as motions to reopen)
Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary relief determinations)
Garcia-Mir v. Smith, 766 F.2d 1478 (11th Cir. 1985) (abuse of discretion review standard)