A9 4 2 et a.respondent led application to adjust his status to lawl pemanent resident (Fo -45)with United States ustoms and Immiation Enrcement (USIS") (otion, Tab E)
OnApr 9, 25, his appication was denied, but the lead respondent caims to have not receivednotication o is decision at the time (otion, Tab H; Tr. at 4-4 ) This decision was maiedto he aoey's oce, but wi te lead respondents nae. hen, on August 5, 25, the leadrespondent received a notice om USIS conceing is employment auhorition hat satedAreview o your record indicates hat e Application to Register Perment Residence or Adjust Staus (-45) you led wit this oce has beenapproved .. Please note tat aliens who are lal peanent residents o heUnited States ae authorized to egage in employmentotion, Tab IThe statement hat his saus had been adjusted was in eor
alien may adjust his saus toaw peent resident pursut to he requiremens o section 245 o the Act, US..§ 255. Oher than his satement in dicta, neither he respondent nor he Depment o Homeld Security (DHS") has provided any evidence at such adjusment occuedA Notice to Appear was then issued on October 5, 25 (Eh Motion, Tab )Although the lead respondent w tod on August 5, 25, tat he had lawl permanent resident saus, there is no evidence such satus was ever grted to him.He argues that hisactions hereaer were in response to tis statement However, we, lke he mmiaion udge,are witout auhority to apply equitable estoppel to e actions o the DHS.
See Matter ofHeandez-Puente
2 I&N Dec. 335 (BIA 99 ) Equitabe estoppe is a judicialy deviseddocine hat precludes a party to a lawsuit, because o some improper conduct on that partysp,om asseng a claim or a deense, regdless o its subsantive validiy.
FederalEmergen Management Agency
75 F.2d 3 (st ir9) Estoppe is an equitable o action,
only equiable rigts recoized
53 F2d 29 (5h ir19) By conast this Board, i consideng and deteinng cases bere it, can onlyeercise such discretion and autoriy conered upon te Aoey General by aw. F.R§ 3 .( d)(l ). Our juisdictionis dened by the regulations, and we have no jursdiction unessit is atively anted by e regulations.
Matter of HernandezPuente, supra; Matter ofSano
9 I&N Dec 299 (BIA 95)
Matter of Zadan
9 I&N Dec. 297 (BIA 95).We areabe to eercise equiable esoppe For these same reasons, we are without author to ant the respondens relie based on he specic naure o heir siuation (RespBr at 2)Given that we e without power to ant the lead respondent the requested reie throughequitabe estoppel, we agree with he Immigration udge that both respondents e removabe ascharged. Te lead respondent worked wihout authoization beween August 25, and Feb2. e arues at he believed he was auoized to wr, based o e eoneous satement by USIS, but we obsee tat a Notice to Appear was seed on im on October , 25,indicating he was not in legal satus (xh
In any event, it is clear that he did work wiout authorizaion and is removable on his basis Aso the respondens' argument hat e DHS must The respondens motion led in Immigration our provided copies o all perinent documents Reerences to the Mtion in this decisi are t this submissio)2
Cite as: Farzad Saeed Qureshi, A098 144 820 (BIA Aug. 14, 2013)