Alicia Lilian Povsic, et al v. Atty Gen USA

Filing 3010170086

Alicia Lilian Povsic, et al v. Atty Gen USA

Doc. 3010170086

Case: 09-3976

Document: 003110170086

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/04/2010

IMG-221

N O T PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ N o . 09-3976 ___________ A L IC IA LILIAN POVSIC; JONATHAN POVSIC, Petitioners v. A T T O R N E Y GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, R e sp o n d e n t ____________________________________ O n Petition for Review of an Order of the B o a rd of Immigration Appeals (A g e n c y Nos. A95 340 723 and A98 098 058) Im m ig ratio n Judge: Honorable Margaret Reichenberg ____________________________________

S u b m itte d Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) M a y 26, 2010 B e f o re : FUENTES, ROTH AND VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges (O p in io n filed: June 4, 2010) ___________ O P IN IO N ___________ P E R CURIAM A lic ia Povsic and her son, Jonathan Povsic, petition for review of a Board of Im m igratio n Appeals ("BIA") decision dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge's (" IJ " ) decision denying their motion to terminate the removal proceedings and finding

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-3976

Document: 003110170086

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/04/2010

th e m removable from the United States. We will deny the petition for review. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") issued notices to appear c h a rg in g that Alicia and Jonathan Povsic, natives and citizens of Uruguay, were subject to re m o v a l from the United States because they were present without having being admitted o r paroled. Through counsel, the Povsics denied the factual allegations and charges in the n o tic e s to appear. To establish the factual allegations and charges of removability, DHS s u b m itte d the Povsics' applications for family unity benefits under the amendments to the L e g a l Immigration Family Equity ("LIFE") Act and decisions denying those applications. The Povsics moved to terminate the removal proceedings, arguing that the in f o rm a tio n contained in their applications was protected by the confidentiality provisions o f the LIFE Act. The IJ disagreed, explaining that the confidentiality provisions apply to in f o r m a tio n contained in applications for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, n o t to information contained in applications for family unity benefits. Based on the in f o rm a tio n contained in the Povsics' applications, the IJ concluded that DHS had e sta b lis h e d their alienage and found that the Povsics had submitted no evidence showing th a t they were lawfully admitted to the United States, that they are entitled to be admitted, o r that they are not inadmissible. The IJ thus denied the motion to terminate the removal p ro c e ed in g s , found the Povsics removable as charged, and granted their applications for v o lu n ta ry departure. T h e BIA dismissed the Povsics' appeal, finding that the IJ properly admitted their

2

Case: 09-3976

Document: 003110170086

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/04/2010

a p p lic a tio n s for family unity benefits and that, based on the statements contained in the a p p lic a tio n s , they are subject to removal. This petition for review followed. W e have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the agency's lega l conclusions de novo, subject to established principles of deference. Patel v. Att'y G en era l, 599 F.3d 295, 297 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). T h e LIFE Act affords aliens who filed claims for class membership in certain class a c tio n lawsuits the opportunity to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent resident s ta tu s . See Patel, 599 F.3d at 296 (citing Pub. L. No. 106-553, § 1104, 114 Stat. 2762, 2 7 6 2 A -1 4 6 -4 9 (2000)). The LIFE Act Amendments allow spouses and children of aliens w h o have filed LIFE Act applications to remain in the United States and obtain work a u th o riz a tio n . See id. (citing Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 1504, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-325 (20 0 0 )). W e recently held that, under the plain language of the LIFE Act, the confidentiality p ro v isio n s applicable to applications of aliens seeking adjustment of status do not apply to the applications of aliens seeking family unity benefits under the LIFE Act A m e n d m e n ts. Patel, 599 F.3d at 298. As in Patel, the Povsics applied for family unity b e n e fits under the LIFE Act Amendments, not adjustment of status, and their applications w e re denied. Thus, the confidentiality provisions of the LIFE Act do not apply and the B IA did not err in finding that the IJ properly admitted, and considered the information in, th e Povsics' applications. A c c o rd in g ly, because Patel controls this case, we will deny the petition for review. 3