Butt v. Gonzales (2007)

For example, the Second Circuit in Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 132-33 (2d Cir. 2007), “decline[d] to consider” the ground that was the basis for the agency’s decision and was the principal issue argued on appeal, and instead remanded to the agency for consideration of antecedent issues. 3.

It is clear that “approvable when filed” is ambiguous; we previously said as much in Butt v. Gonzales, a case we decided addressing this regulation. 500 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2007) (“The meaning of promulgate these regulations; the Department of Justice did. 8 ‘approvable when filed’ is ambiguous . . . .”).

It is clear that “approvable when filed” is ambiguous; we previously said as much in Butt v. Gonzales, a case we decided addressing this regulation. 500 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir.2007) (“The meaning of ‘approvable when filed’ is ambiguous .... ”).

See, e.g., Agor v. Sessions, 751 F. App'x 60 , 62 (2d Cir. 2018) ("The issue is whether the petition merited a legal victory upon filing, even if it was later abandoned or denied based on a change in circumstances." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 2008) ("[A] visa petition is meritorious in fact for purposes of grandfathering under 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10 if, based on the circumstances that existed at the time the petition was…

Butt 6 v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 131 (2d Cir. 2007). 7 B.

An alien has such status if a petition was filed on her behalf that was “approvable when filed.” See Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir.2007).

In Butt v. Gonzales, we recognized that “[t]he meaning of ‘approvable when filed’ is ambiguous,” 500 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir.2007), and remanded for the BIA to interpret the definition of “approvable when filed.” Id.

In Butt v. Gonzales, we recognized that “[t]he meaning of ‘approvable when filed’ is ambiguous,” 500 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir.2007), and remanded for the BIA to interpret the definition of “approvable when filed.” Id.

See Linares Huarcaya v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 224, 229 (2d Cir. 2008); Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2007).

Section 1255 (i)—permitting an alien to “apply for adjustment of status only if he is ‘grandfathered’ under 8 U.S.C § 1255(i)(l)).” Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir. 2007).

See 8 C.F.R § 1245.10(b); see also Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir.2007).

See Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130 , 132–33 (2d Cir. 2007); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a), (i); 8 C.F.R. § 245.10 (b)(3).

See, e.g., Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2007).

Federal law provides that an immigrant who is unlawfully present in the United States may nonetheless qualify for a change of immigration status as a so-called grandfathered alien if he “is the beneficiary ... of ... an application for a labor certification ... that was filed pursuant to the regulations of the Secretary of Labor on or before [April 30, 2001].” 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (i)(l)(B)(ii); see also Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 132-33 (2d Cir.2007) (describing the general…

See Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2007); United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir.1994).

See, e.g., Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2007); see also United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir.1994).

See, e.g., Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2007); see also United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir.1994).

See Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 133-34 (2d Cir.2007).

See Butt v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding that the denial of a continuance based on a pending labor certification was an abuse of discretion because the Immigration Judge failed to consider the alien’s section 245(i) eligibility); Ahmed v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 806, 809 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that the denial of a continuance based on the alien’s intent to file a labor certification was not “reasoned” because the Immigration Judge failed to acknowledge the eff…