Ivan Cadavedo v. Loretta Lynch, 835 F.3d 779

Ivan Mendoza Cadavedo, a Philippine national, applied in 2007 to adjust status to lawful permanent resident through his U.S. citizen spouse; USCIS found the marriage fraudulent in 2009 and barred any future petitions under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c).
DHS issued a Notice to Appear in 2012 charging removability (overstay, unauthorized work, and marriage-fraud–based adjustment fraud). Cadavedo admitted most charges but contested the marriage-fraud allegation.
New counsel sought continuances in late 2013 and January 2014 to develop a fraud-defense; a de facto delay occurred from the 2013 federal shutdown but no formal relief producing an approved I-130.
At the January 29, 2014 hearing the government’s fraud witness failed to appear, the government dropped the contested fraud charge, and Cadavedo requested a continuance to seek collateral relief from USCIS (to overturn the 2009 fraud finding and later adjust status through a daughter who was naturalizing).
The immigration judge denied the continuance and ordered removal on uncontested grounds; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding the requested relief speculative and the visa petition not prima facie approvable due to the fraud bar.
Cadavedo petitioned for review; the Seventh Circuit denied the petition, holding denial of the continuance and no due-process violation were not abuses of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance to pursue collateral USCIS relief was an abuse of discretion	Cadavedo: needs time to challenge USCIS fraud finding and seek adjustment through daughter	Gov: USCIS fraud bar makes success speculative; no prima facie approvable petition; continuance unwarranted	Denial not an abuse of discretion — relief speculative and visa not prima facie approvable
Whether Board should have applied Ninth Circuit Baires factors instead of Hashmi factors	Cadavedo: Board erred by not using Baires factors	Gov: Hashmi is proper standard and was applied	Board properly applied Hashmi; no abuse of discretion
Whether denial of continuance denied due process by foreclosing a fraud challenge in immigration court	Cadavedo: refusal prevented him from contesting fraud finding, violating due process	Gov: Adjustment is discretionary (no protected liberty interest); alternative administrative remedies existed; no prejudice shown	No due process violation — no protected interest in discretionary relief and no prejudice; other remedies available
Whether denial of administrative closure was an abuse of discretion	Cadavedo: sought administrative closure	Gov: same discretionary reasons against delay	Denial proper for same reasons as continuance denial

Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction and standards for reviewing continuance denials and when denial may reflect inability to prevail on merits)
Pawlowska v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1138 (7th Cir. 2010) (review of IJ decision as supplemented by BIA)
Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785 (BIA) (factors for evaluating continuance to pursue I-130/adjustment applications)
Souley v. Holder, 779 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2015) (no abuse in denying continuance where adjustment was speculative)
Adame v. Holder, 762 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2014) (Hashmi is the correct BIA standard for continuances)
Aimin Yang v. Holder, 760 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming Hashmi standard application)
Hamdan v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 2005) (no protected liberty interest in discretionary relief like adjustment of status)
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (due process right to removal proceedings generally)
Vahora v. Holder, 626 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2010) (review of denial of administrative closure for abuse of discretion)