Gabriel Kigamba v. Jefferson Sessions, 680 F. App'x 608

Kigamba, a Kenyan national, overstayed a non-immigrant visa and later applied for asylum.
He produced a document purportedly from an immigration judge (IJ) granting asylum and used it to apply for adjustment of status in 2009.
The government initiated removal proceedings in 2010; Kigamba admitted removability but initially said he would seek asylum.
He then sought a continuance so his U.S. citizen wife could file an I-130 to support adjustment of status; the IJ denied the continuance, finding the asylum grant document fraudulent.
The BIA affirmed the IJ, denied a motion to remand and later denied a motion to reopen after the I-130 was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review denial of discretionary adjustment of status	Kigamba contends BIA abused discretion and violated due process by not properly weighing equities	Government: discretionary denial is committed to agency discretion and not reviewable	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiff’s due-process claim recharacterizes an abuse-of-discretion argument and is not colorable under reviewability exceptions
IJ’s adverse credibility finding re: asylum grant document	Kigamba argued the document was genuine and his explanation for discrepancies was reasonable	Government maintained the document was fraudulent and Kigamba’s explanation was implausible	Court has jurisdiction over nondiscretionary review and denies relief; IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence
Denial of continuance to allow I-130 processing	Kigamba argued denial of continuance was improper and prejudicial	Government argued denial was within IJ’s discretion given fraud findings and case circumstances	Petition dismissed insofar as it challenges denial of continuance (discretionary, not reviewable)
Denial of motion to reopen after I-130 approval	Kigamba sought reopening based on newly approved I-130	Government argued prior adverse credibility and fraud rulings foreclose reopening	Court denies petition — BIA denial of reopening affirmed based on underlying credibility/fraud findings

Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2006) (discretionary immigration relief generally not reviewable; due-process claims that are disguised abuse-of-discretion challenges are not colorable)
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (characterizing limits on judicial review of discretionary immigration relief)
Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2004) (jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary aspects of BIA denials of motions to reopen/remand)
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence standard governs review of IJ credibility determinations)