The IJ refused to continue the case for I-130 adjudication, based on the case completition goals (I-130 not adjudicated due to investigation of divorce decree). BIA affirmed, finding questions raised as to authenticity of divorce decree.
The 3d cir found the IJ's use of case completition goals was error:
This one-size-fits-all approach runs contrary to our statement in Ponce-Leiva that what “constitutes an abuse of discretion cannot be decided through the application of bright-line rules; it must be resolved on a case by case basis according to the facts and circumstances of each case.” 331 F.3d at 377 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Case-completion goals are ordinarily implemented as guidelines to promote reasonable uniformity and to help judges schedule and effectively manage their caseloads. As guidelines, they should not be read as an end in themselves but as a means to prompt and fair dispositions, giving due regard to the unique facts and circumstances of the case.
It also disagreed with OIL's argument that Petitioner should have filed a mandamus vs USCIS, and found that BIA's suggestion that the fault for the delay may have been Petitioner's - because of the alleged fraud - was a finding of fact, which the BIA is prohibited from making.
3rd Cir agreed with the IJ and BIA that petitioner from Colombia had not established past persecution on account of a protected ground, but found that petitioner had a well-founded fear of future persecution as a member of a particular social group - women who escaped FARC. The court remanded to the BIA to address whether petitioner could reasonably relocate, and also to address her withholding and CAT claims.
Arca-Pineda v. Attorney General, 3rd Circuit 5/28/08
Rodriguez, McKee, Garth
Where petitioner was served with an order to show cause the same day she entered without inspection, and the IJ later admin closed her case, the stop-time rule applied and thus petitioner acquired zero physical presence and was not eligible for suspension of deportation, despite the admin closure. The court rejected petitioner's equal protection argument.
The 3d Cir held that the 10K loss provisions of 1101(a)(43)(M) need not be elements of the conviction, but can be proven by other evidence like a restitution order. Judge Stapleton, dissenting, would have applied Taylor / Shephard to the 10K analysis.
The 3d Cir vacated and remanded a withholding denial, in light of multiple interpretation problems and unfair IJ interference. However, it did not grant the PfR as to the asylum denial, which was premised on the same flawed adverse credibility decision and procedural errors.
Third Circuit 
