Although it came down subsequently, the BIA decision in In re Hashmi informs us of the standards the agency has approved for discretion in such a matter. 24 I. N. Dec. 785 (B.I.A. 2009). The facts in In re Hashmi are similar to the facts at issue here.

The immigrant may then apply for adjustment of status. See generally Matter of Hashmi , 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 789–90 (BIA 2009) (describing process for adjustment of status). If an immigrant attempts to obtain adjustment of status through a sham marriage, however, no future petition on behalf of that immigrant may be approved. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1)(ii).In 2007, Cadavedo sought to adjust his status through his U.S. citizen wife. His wife filed an I-130 petition for recognition of Cadavedo as her spouse, and Cadavedo filed a corresponding I-485 petition to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident.

Shaileshkumar Arvindbhai Shah, a native citizen of India, has filed a petition for review of a dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of an appeal of an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of a motion for a continuance. Shah complains that his motion for a continuance of the removal proceedings was not considered against the factors set forth in the BIA's decision in Matter of Hashmi, 24 I & N. Dec. 785 (BIA 2009). The grant of a motion to continue lies within the sound discretion of the IJ, who may grant a continuance for good cause shown.

His third wife—a U.S. citizen whom he married in late 2010, four months after his case was reopened—also submitted a Petition for Alien Relative form (called a Form I-130) to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on his behalf, which, if approved, would allow Teneng to file for adjustment of status based on the marriage. See Yang v. Holder, 760 F.3d 660, 662 (7th Cir. 2014); Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 789 (BIA 2009). Once the case was reopened, the government filed an amendment to the 1998 Notice to Appear, adding new allegations and charges of removability.

Id.; see Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. &N. Dec. 785, 790 (B.I.A. 2009) (identifying five non-exhaustive factors and noting that "the focus of the inquiry is the apparent ultimate likelihood of success on the adjustment application").

Here, neither the IJ's denial of a continuance nor the BIA's dismissal of the Hussainis' appeal constitutes abuse of discretion. Though the BIA encourages the favorable exercise of the IJ's discretion "where a prima facie approvable visa petition and adjustment application have been submitted in the course of an ongoing removal hearing," In re Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 790 (BIA 2009), IJs need not "grant a continuance in every case where there is a pending visa petition." Id.

Once a case is closed administratively, "either party can move to have the case recalendered" once circumstances "indicat[e] that the case is ready for a hearing." Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 792 n.4 (BIA 2009). The Government's contention seems to be that review is precluded by the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney because there is no "meaningful standard" by which to judge administrative-closure decisions.

Souley failed to appear for his hearing in August 2008, so an IJ in Philadelphia ordered him removed in absentia.Apparently unaware of the removal order, Souley moved from Pennsylvania to Indiana and married Rochelle Thornton, a U.S. citizen, in June 2009. Nearly two years later, Souley, assisted by counsel, filed an application to adjust his status, and Thornton applied concurrently on his behalf for an I–130 “alien relative” visa—the first step toward adjusting his status to permanent resident, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1255(i) ; 8 C.F.R. § 245.2 ; Nunez–Moron v. Holder, 702 F.3d 353, 354 n. 1 (7th Cir.2013) (as amended on denial of rehearing) (explaining that an approved I–130 petition allows a person illegally present in the United States to remain and apply for adjustment of status); In re Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 789–90 (BIA 2009). In late 2011 immigration officers interviewed the couple and detained Souley based on the outstanding August 2008 removal order.

Souley failed to appear for his hearing in August 2008, so an IJ in Philadelphia ordered him removed in absentia. Apparently unaware of the removal order, Souley moved from Pennsylvania to Indiana and married Rochelle Thornton, a U.S. citizen, in June 2009. Nearly two years later, Souley, assisted by counsel, filed an application to adjust his status, and Thornton applied concurrently on his behalf for an I–130 “alien relative” visa—the first step toward adjusting his status to permanent resident, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1255(i); 8 C.F.R. § 245.2; Nunez–Moron v. Holder, 702 F.3d 353, 354 n. 1 (7th Cir.2013) (as amended on denial of rehearing) (explaining that an approved I–130 petition allows a person illegally present in the United States to remain and apply for adjustment of status); In re Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 789–90 (BIA 2009). In late 2011 immigration officers interviewed the couple and detained Souley based on the outstanding August 2008 removal order.

Ferreira now seeks review of the BIA's denial of his motion for reconsideration. In his petition, Ferreira argues that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth in Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785 (BIA 2009) and Matter of Rajah, 25 I. & N. Dec. 127 (BIA 2009). We agree that the BIA erred in failing to abide by its own precedent, and, accordingly, grant the petition, vacate the decision of the BIA, and remand for further proceedings.