Blake v. Sessions
706 F. App'x 41
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Andre Nazeen Blake, a Jamaican national, appealed the BIA’s November 4, 2016 decision affirming an IJ’s March 30, 2016 denial of a continuance and ordering removal.
- Blake married while removal proceedings were pending and sought a continuance to pursue adjustment of status based on that marriage.
- DHS opposed the continuance and the IJ found the marriage presumptively fraudulent; Blake presented no evidence to rebut the presumption.
- The IJ and BIA considered whether the underlying visa petition was prima facie approvable and whether Blake met the statutory standard for adjustment when marriage occurred during pending proceedings.
- The IJ also considered procedural factors (e.g., DHS’s position, history of continuances) and the likelihood of relief when denying both continuance and administrative closure.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ decision as supplemented by the BIA and denied Blake’s petition for review, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of continuance was abuse of discretion | Blake: denial prevented adequate opportunity to prove marriage was bona fide | Government: DHS opposed continuance; marriage presumptively fraudulent; no rebuttal evidence; statutory standard not met | Denied — no abuse of discretion; IJ/BIA considered relevant factors |
| Whether underlying visa petition was prima facie approvable | Blake: marriage should allow adjustment proceedings to proceed | Government: petition likely not approvable given presumption of fraud and lack of evidence | Held against Blake — petition unlikely approvable |
| Whether Blake met statutory burden for adjustment after marrying during proceedings | Blake: eligible for adjustment based on marriage | Government: 8 U.S.C. §1255(e) requires clear and convincing proof of good-faith marriage; Blake did not meet it | Held against Blake — statutory eligibility not demonstrated |
| Whether administrative closure was warranted | Blake: administrative closure would allow time to pursue relief | Government: low likelihood of success and procedural concerns counseled against closure | Denied — IJ/BIA permissibly denied administrative closure |
Key Cases Cited
- Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of BIA decisions that adopt and supplement IJ rulings)
- Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 449 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard of abuse of discretion for continuance denials)