A-N- & R-M-N-

Interim Decision #3406
In re A-N- & R-M-N-, Applicants
Decided July 23, 1999
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Aliens seeking to reopen exclusion proceedings to apply for asylum and withholding of
deportation who have presented evidence establishing materially changed circumstances in
their homeland or place of last habitual residence, such that they meet the general require-
ments for motions to reopen, need not demonstrate “reasonable cause” for their failure to
appear at the prior exclusion hearing.
Lea Greenberger, Esquire, Encino, California, for applicants
Richard J. Averwater, Assistant District Counsel, for the Immigration and Naturalization
Service
Before: 	Board En Banc: SCHMIDT, Chairman; HEILMAN, HOLMES, HURWITZ, VIL-
LAGELIU, FILPPU, COLE, ROSENBERG, GUENDELSBERGER, GRANT,
SCIALABBA, and MOSCATO, Board Members. Dissenting Opinion: MATHON,
Board Member, joined by DUNNE, Vice Chairman; VACCA, and JONES, Board
Members.
SCHMIDT, Chairman:
This case was last before us on April 19, 1991, when we summarily
dismissed the applicants’ appeal from an Immigration Judge’s June 12,
1990, decision finding them inadmissible pursuant to section 212(a)(20)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(20) (1988),
and ordering them excluded and deported from the United States. 1 The
953
1Although additional grounds of inadmissibility were alleged, the Immigration Judge
found the applicants inadmissible only under section 212(a)(20) of the Act. This ground of
exclusion was revised and redesignated as section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (Supp. II 1990), by section 601(a) of the
Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5067, 5074. The amendment
applies to individuals entering the United States on or after June 1, 1991. Id. § 601(e), 104
Stat. at 5077. Subsequently, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996, Division C of Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, combined what were
separate exclusion and deportation proceedings into a unified removal proceeding. See Matter
of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. 3384 (BIA 1999).

Interim Decision #3406
applicants’ exclusion hearing before the Immigration Judge was conduct-
ed in absentia, as neither appeared for the scheduled proceedings. In a
motion submitted on September 30, 1996, the applicants requested that
this Board reopen the exclusion proceedings so that they might seek asy-
lum or withholding of deportation pursuant to sections 208(a) and 243(h)
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1253(h) (1994). 2 That motion will be
granted.
The applicants, natives and citizens of Afghanistan, request an oppor-
tunity to apply for asylum or withholding of deportation based on changed
country conditions in their homeland which have taken place since their
scheduled exclusion hearing. The issue before us is whether the applicants
must demonstrate “reasonable cause” for their failure to appear at the prior
exclusion hearing before they will be permitted to seek the requested relief.
We hold that the applicants need not demonstrate “reasonable cause” to pur-
sue such relief if the record establishes materially changed circumstances in
their homeland or place of last habitual residence, such that they meet the
general requirements for motions set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.2(c)(1) and
(3)(ii) (1997).
I. ANALYSIS
A. Timeliness of Filings by the Applicants and the Service
As an initial matter, we find that the applicants timely filed their motion
to reopen in accordance with the general requirements for motions. The
Service asserts in its opposition that the motion was untimely filed on
October 30, 1996. See generally Matter of Mancera, 22 I&N Dec. 3353
(BIA 1998) (involving deportation proceedings conducted in absentia pur-
suant to former section 242(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1994)).
However, the record reflects that it was timely filed with the Board on
September 30, 1996. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2) (1997). Moreover, we have
held that the time and numerical limitations do not apply to motions to
reopen in absentia exclusion hearings. See Matter of N-B-, 22 I&N Dec.
3381 (BIA 1999).
As to the applicants’ assertion that the Service’s response to their
motion was untimely filed, we note that their initial motion to reopen
depicted incorrect “A- numbers” and that no briefing schedule was issued
954
2The applicants supplemented their motion with a filing dated February 3, 1999, which
included additional evidence relating to current country conditions in their homeland. The fil-
ing was properly served on the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Interim Decision #3406
to the parties. Accordingly, we will consider the Service’s filings in the
exercise of our discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(g)(3) (1999).
B. Reopening of Exclusion Proceedings Conducted In Absentia To
Apply for Asylum and Withholding of Deportation
1. Reasonable Cause
The applicants argue that they had “reasonable cause” for failing to
appear at the June 12, 1990, scheduled exclusion hearing. In particular,
while acknowledging that they received notice of the hearing date, they con-
tend that they reasonably relied on their attorney to change the venue of
their hearing from New York, New York, to Los Angeles, California.
Notwithstanding the applicants’ assertions in their motion, the record
clearly reflects that they received sufficient notice of the scheduled exclu-
sion hearing. Separate notices of hearing were properly served at the appli-
cants’ last known address. The service of the notices compelled the appli-
cants to appear for the exclusion hearing in New York. See Matter of
Peugnet, 20 I&N Dec. 233 (BIA 1991); Matter of Munoz-Santos, 20 I&N
Dec. 205 (BIA 1990).
The applicants received proper notice of their hearing. Their argument
that they relied on their attorney to change the venue does not demonstrate
a “reasonable cause” for their failure to attend the June 12, 1990, scheduled
hearing. See Matter of R-R-, 20 I&N Dec. 547 (BIA 1992) (citing Matter of
Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 260 (BIA 1985) aff’d, 803 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 1986)).
Notwithstanding, we do not find the applicants’ failure to establish reason-
able cause to be dispositive in determining whether their case should be
reopened.
2. Materially Changed Circumstances
The Service argues that the applicants’ failure to demonstrate “reason-
able cause” prohibits the reopening of proceedings regardless of any
changed country conditions in Afghanistan subsequent to the June 12, 1990,
in absentia hearing. See Matter of Haim, 19 I&N Dec. 641 (BIA 1988). We
find that a showing of “reasonable cause” is not required before an alien
will be permitted to pursue an application for asylum or withholding of
deportation based on changed country conditions. Rather, an alien who
seeks to reopen proceedings for such a purpose must meet other criteria for
reopening. See Matter of M-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 3369 (BIA 1998). In particu-
lar, in the context of an application for asylum or withholding of deporta-
tion, we will reopen proceedings if an alien demonstrates materially
changed circumstances in his or her homeland or place of last habitual res-
idence, such that the record demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success
955

Interim Decision #3406
on the merits of the application. Id.
As an initial matter, we note that the language of section 236(a) of the
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (1988), is silent as to whether an order of exclusion
may be entered in absentia. See Matter of Nafi, 19 I&N Dec. 430 (BIA
1987).3 Similarly, the federal statutes do not provide direct guidance for the
adjudication of a motion to reopen an exclusion hearing which was con-
ducted in absentia. Nevertheless, we find guidance for the criteria in our
prior administrative decisions and recent federal regulations.
In Matter of Ruiz, 20 I&N Dec. 91, 92 (BIA 1989), we held that an
alien requesting the reopening of proceedings “must state the new facts he
intends to establish, supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”
We additionally indicated that “reasonable cause” need only be shown in
the limited circumstance where the alien moves to reopen proceedings
based on the propriety of the adjudication of the case through an in absen-
tia hearing.
Regulations promulgated after our decision in Matter of Ruiz, supra,
further provide a general exception to restrictions on motions to reopen to
apply for asylum or withholding of deportation if materially changed cir-
cumstances are shown. 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.2(c)(1), (3)(ii); see also Matter of J-J-
, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997). In essence, the regulations prescribe that
the alien need satisfy only the general requirements for motions. See gen-
erally Matter of Gutierrez, 21 I&N Dec. 479 (BIA 1996); Matter of Coelho,
20 I&N Dec. 464 (BIA 1992). Thus, the alien must proffer, in part, suffi-
cient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the
merits so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues further at a full evi-
dentiary hearing. Matter of M-S-, supra. The alien must further demonstrate
that he or she warrants a grant of the motion in the exercise of discretion.
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 315-16 (1992). As the basis of the appli-
cants’ motion is not that the Immigration Judge improperly conducted their
exclusion hearing in absentia, we find they need not demonstrate reasonable
cause to reopen the proceedings.
Applying this analysis to the immediate case, the applicants argue in
their motion to reopen that they can present materially changed circum-
stances which will establish that “country conditions in [their] country
have drastically changed for the worse since [their] departure from
Afghanistan in 1990.” In light of the changes, the applicants assert that
they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their homeland because it
956
3Notwithstanding the lack of direct statutory authorization, we have held that just as an
Immigration Judge may conduct deportation proceedings in absentia pursuant to former sec-
tion 242(b) of the Act, an Immigration Judge has the authority to conduct exclusion proceed-
ings in absentia. Matter of Nafi, supra.

Interim Decision #3406
is controlled by an “ultra-conservative movement known as the Taliban.”
In particular, they argue that the Taliban persecutes “similarly situated”
individuals. The applicants conclude that they would be subject to perse-
cution on account one of the following five grounds protected by the Act:
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and
political opinion. See section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42) (1994) (defining “refugee”).
The applicants argue that the evidence of record and their particular sit-
uations support a finding that their cultural practices conflict with Taliban
governance and would result in persecution should they return to
Afghanistan. The female applicant fears that she would be “raped and mur-
dered because of [her] political and religious beliefs and practices by [the
Taliban].” She fears that she would be targeted in her homeland for perse-
cution in that she is a college-educated female who has adopted a “Western”
mode of clothing and who desires to work outside the home, namely as a
primary school teacher.
Moreover, she fears persecution on account of her association with
Christians. In particular, she fears that the Taliban would deem her guilty of
apostasy as she has entered into friendships with Christians and has attend-
ed Christian church services.
Similarly, the male applicant fears persecution in his homeland because
he believes that the Taliban would impute to him a “pro-Western” political
opinion. Furthermore, he is afraid of persecution based on his Christian and
Jewish friendships. He is not a believer in the Taliban’s interpretation of
Islam. Finally, the male applicant notes that he has experienced and adopt-
ed many aspects of “Western” culture.
We find that the applicants have met the general requirements for
motions and that the record contains sufficient evidence to indicate a rea-
sonable likelihood that their applications may succeed on the merits. The
applicants’ motion is supported by substantial documentary evidence. The
evidence submitted includes their respective applications for asylum, affi-
davits executed by the applicants, and various recent reports relating to cur-
rent conditions in Afghanistan.
The documentary evidence submitted with the applicants’ motion
includes several accounts detailing the current country conditions in
Afghanistan. In particular, the evidence addresses the plight of women
under the Taliban. The reports indicate that “[t]he emergence of the Taleban
[sic] in 1994 created a new layer of human rights abuse against women,
who are banned from employment, education and leaving home without a
male relative. Women who wear nail varnish could have their fingers
chopped off, and thousands have been beaten in the streets for defying
Taleban [sic] orders.” Amnesty International, Human Rights and Gender in
Afghanistan, AI Index: ASA 11/02/98 (March 1998). Moreover, the evi-
dence submitted includes a recent report by the United States Department
957

Interim Decision ##3406
of State. The report indicates that “[s]erious human rights violations con-
tinue to occur [in Afghanistan] . . . . Political killings, torture, rape, arbitrary
detention, looting, abductions, and kidnapings for ransom were committed
by armed units, local commanders, and rogue individuals.” Committees on
International Relations and Foreign Relations, 105th Cong., 2d Sess.,
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1997 1605, 1606 (Joint
Comm. Print 1998) [hereinafter Country Reports].
The evidence of record additionally indicates that conditions in
Afghanistan have changed for individuals who do not practice Islam in
accordance with the Taliban. The Department of State’s report states that
the Taliban “have declared that all Muslims must abide by the Taliban’s
interpretation of Islamic law.” Country Reports, supra, at 1610. The group
has sought “to impose their extreme interpretation of Islamic observance.”
Id. at 1609. For example, “a man who has shaved or cut his beard may be
imprisoned until his beard grows back.” Id. at 1610. The applicants have
submitted evidence that their beliefs substantially differ from that of the
Taliban in the observance of Islam. Accordingly, they fear that the Taliban
would consider them guilty of apostasy on account of their associations
with Christians and their adoption of “Western” culture. In the form of an
affidavit, the applicants submitted evidence that the Taliban has subjected
those who are classified as apostates to immediate arrest, imprisonment,
and execution. In view of the totality of the evidence, the applicants have
demonstrated that conditions have dramatically changed in Afghanistan for
Muslims who do not abide by the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam.
The applicants have demonstrated materially changed country condi-
tions in Afghanistan since the date of the Immigration Judge’s decision. See
generally Matter of N-M-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 3368 (BIA 1998) (remanding
exclusion proceedings to an Immigration Judge for consideration of an
application for asylum and withholding of deportation in light of changed
country conditions in Afghanistan that resulted in Taliban governance).
Furthermore, in light of the current country conditions and the totality of the
evidence, the record reflects a reasonable likelihood of success for the
applicants’ asylum claim. Matter of M-S-, supra. Accordingly, we conclude
that the applicants have satisfied the general requirements for reopening
exclusion proceedings to apply for asylum based on materially changed
country conditions in their homeland.
3. Discretion
The exercise of discretion in a particular case necessarily requires con-
sideration of all the facts and circumstances involved in immigration pro-
ceedings. This Board may deny a motion to reopen for purely discretionary
reasons even where the record reflects that significant grounds exist for
reopening based on the applicants’ actions. See Matter of Pena-Diaz, 20
958

Interim Decision #3406
I&N Dec. 841 (BIA 1994). The exercise of discretion in a particular case
necessarily requires consideration of all the facts and circumstances
involved. Matter of Coelho, supra.
Turning to the applicants’ motion, we find their failure to appear for the
June 12, 1990, exclusion hearing to be a very serious adverse factor. See
Matter of M-S-, supra (finding that an Immigration Judge should determine
in each individual case the weight to be accorded to an alien’s explanation
for failing to appear and whether such explanation is a favorable or adverse
factor with respect to a discretionary determination). However, we note that
the Service was not prejudiced by their absence. The Immigration Judge
properly conducted the hearing in absentia, found the applicants to be
inadmissible, and issued orders of exclusion and deportation. Matter of
Nafi, supra; see also, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 21 I&N Dec. 1050 (BIA 1997);
Matter of N-K- & V-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 879 (BIA 1997). The finding of inad-
missibility is not challenged by the applicants.
As the applicants have met the burden of demonstrating a reasonable
likelihood of success in relation to their respective asylum claims, we do not
find the fact that they remained in the United States after the issuance of a
deportation order sufficient to deny their reopening request as a matter of
discretion. See generally Arrozal v. INS, 159 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1998) (hold-
ing that an alien’s failure to report for deportation is but one factor to con-
sider in a discretionary analysis); cf. Matter of Barocio, 19 I&N Dec. 255
(BIA 1985) (finding that an alien in deportation proceedings who fails to
report to the Service following notification to report for immediate depor-
tation does not merit the favorable exercise of discretion required for
reopening). Upon consideration of all the factors of record, we find that the
applicants merit reopening in the exercise of discretion.
II. CONCLUSION
The applicants failed to demonstrate “reasonable cause” for failing to
attend their June 12, 1990, exclusion hearing. However, we find it appro-
priate to reopen the proceedings because the applicants have satisfied the
general regulatory requirements for motions to reopen. In particular, the
applicants have presented materially changed circumstances in Afghanistan
which, in view of the totality of the evidence, demonstrate a reasonable like-
lihood of success on the merits of an application for asylum or withholding
of deportation. Accordingly, we will reopen the proceedings and remand the
record to the Immigration Judge for further consideration of their respective
asylum applications.
At the reopened hearing, the applicants bear the evidentiary burdens of
proof and persuasion. See Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 1997).
In addition, both the applicants and the Service will have an opportunity to
959

Interim Decision ##3406
present evidence at the hearing regarding conditions in Afghanistan and the
applicants’ persecution claims.
ORDER: 	The motion to reopen is granted and the exclusion pro-
ceedings are reopened.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration
Judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and for the entry
of a new decision.
DISSENTING OPINION: 	Lauren R. Mathon, Board Member, in which
Mary Maguire Dunne, Vice Chairman; Fred W. Vacca, and Philemina
McNeill Jones, Board Members, joined
I respectfully dissent.
I disagree with the majority’s finding that the applicants need not
demonstrate a reasonable cause for their failure to attend a scheduled exclu-
sion hearing before they will be permitted to reopen the proceedings to
apply for asylum and withholding of deportation under sections 208(a) and
243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and
1253(h) (1994). The record reflects that the applicants failed to attend a
June 12, 1990, exclusion hearing for which they received notice. The
Immigration Judge conducted an in absentia hearing pursuant to section
236(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (1988). He found the applicants inad-
missible and ordered each excluded and deported from the United States.
The applicants now seek to reopen the proceedings so that they may apply
for relief from exclusion and deportation based on materially changed cir-
cumstances in their homeland. However, I find that this Board’s prior deci-
sions and the statutory framework of the Act require that the applicants
demonstrate a reasonable cause for their failure to appear before they may
reopen their exclusion proceedings.
I. APPLICABLE LAW
Pursuant to section 236(a) of the Act, when an applicant for admission
has notice of his or her exclusion hearing and fails to appear, an
Immigration Judge may, in his or her discretion, find that the applicant has
failed to establish his or her admissibility and has abandoned any applica-
tion for relief and may further order the applicant excluded and deported.
Matter of Haim, 19 I&N Dec. 641 (BIA 1988). It is well established that
an alien must show reasonable cause for his or her absence in order for
exclusion proceedings to be reopened after a hearing is held in absentia.
Matter of S-A-, 21 I&N Dec. 1050 (BIA 1997). In particular, an alien who
seeks to reopen exclusion proceedings held in absentia in order to apply for
asylum and withholding of deportation under sections 208(a) and 243(h) of
960

Interim Decision ##3406
the Act must demonstrate reasonable cause for his or her failure to appear
before the alien is permitted the opportunity to present a request for relief
at a hearing. Matter of Ruiz, 20 I&N Dec. 91, 93 (BIA 1989). Once an alien
establishes reasonable cause for his or her failure to appear, a motion to
reopen the proceedings will be granted without first requiring that the alien
establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. Id.
II. ANALYSIS
In this case, the Immigration Judge found the applicants inadmissible
and ordered them excluded and deported in absentia pursuant to section
236(a) of the Act. The applicants, in their motion dated September 30, 1996,
acknowledge that they must demonstrate reasonable cause in order to
reopen their proceedings held in absentia. See Matter of S-A-, supra. They
argue that the totality of the circumstances demonstrates good faith, dili-
gence in attempting to cooperate with the Immigration Court and submit to
its procedures, and good cause not to appear at the scheduled hearing due
to actual lack of notice. In particular, the applicants state they did not
receive proper notice of their scheduled hearing because they retained an
attorney who failed to inform them of any scheduled hearing in the matter.
The record of proceedings reflects that on May 24, 1990, notice was
sent to the applicants’ last known address advising them that a master cal-
endar hearing would be held in their case on June 12, 1990, in New York,
New York. The applicants admit that they received notice, but they argue
that they failed to attend the scheduled hearing on the mistaken belief that
their attorney would have the venue of the hearing changed to Los Angeles.
However, the service of the notice of hearing provided was sufficient to
compel their attendance at the New York master calender hearing. See
Matter of Peugnet, 20 I&N Dec. 233 (BIA 1991); Matter of Munoz-Santos,
20 I&N Dec. 205 (BIA 1990). The notice sent to the applicants’ last known
address was proper service and, therefore, the proceeding was properly con-
ducted in absentia. The applicants have not demonstrated reasonable cause
for their failure to appear at the June 12, 1990, exclusion hearing. See
Matter of R-R-, 20 I&N Dec. 547 (BIA 1992) (citing Matter of Patel, 19
I&N Dec. 260 (BIA 1985), aff’d, 803 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 1986)).
The majority argues in part that our recent decision Matter of M-S-, 22
I&N Dec. 3369 (BIA 1998), suggests that there is no legitimate bar to a
motion that seeks to reopen proceedings in order to apply for asylum where
a prima facie showing of materially changed circumstances has been
demonstrated. However, this Board clearly indicated in Matter of Ruiz,
supra, that an alien previously found inadmissible and ordered deported at
a hearing held in absentia must demonstrate a reasonable cause for his or
her failure to appear before he or she is permitted to apply for asylum.
961

Interim Decision #3406
Furthermore, the immediate proceedings fundamentally differ from depor-
tation proceedings conducted in absentia pursuant to former section 242B
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252b (1994).1 Section 242B of the Act is not appli-
cable to exclusion proceedings conducted in absentia, as it is restricted to
deportation cases that arise on or after June 13, 1992. See Matter of
Gonzalez-Lopez, 20 I&N Dec. 644, 645 (BIA 1993). As such, our recent
precedent in Matter of M-S-, supra, is not applicable to these proceedings
because it applies only to proceedings conducted pursuant to section 242B
of the Act.
Prior to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a final order
against an alien could only be issued at an immigration hearing at which the
alien was in attendance. See generally H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952)
(addressing deportation proceedings conducted in absentia pursuant to sec-
tion 242(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1952)), reprinted in 1952
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1712. This Board has held that section 236(a) may be
used to prevent aliens from frustrating the immigration process by refusing,
without legitimate cause, to attend a scheduled hearing or leaving a hearing
at their own pleasure and without other than contumacious reasons. See
Matter of Nafi, 19 I&N Dec. 430, 431 (BIA 1987). The requirement that an
applicant demonstrate reasonable cause for failure to appear is a reflection
of Congress’ intent to prevent the frustration of the immigration process. To
find otherwise would permit aliens to avoid immigration proceedings until
they have developed prima facie eligibility for relief from exclusion and
deportation. See Matter of Nafi, supra (finding that, but for the Immigration
Judge’s ability to conduct a hearing in absentia at her discretion, an alien
could remain in the United States indefinitely by simply refusing to appear
for a hearing). The majority opinion is not consistent with the overall statu-
tory scheme of section 236(a) of the Act.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I would deny the applicants’
motion to reopen.
962
1The statutory language governing in absentia deportation proceedings under former
section 242B of the Act now appears in almost identical form in section 240(b)(5) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (Supp. II 1996), which governs in absentia removal proceedings. See
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub. L.
No. 104-108, § 304(a)(3), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-589 (“IIRIRA”), amended by Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II, 111 Stat. 2193
(1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (1997) (“NACARA”). As a gener-
al matter, persons in deportation or exclusion proceedings begun before April 1, 1997, are not
subject to the changes made by the IIRIRA. Matter of Nolasco, 22 I&N Dec. 3385 (BIA
1999) (citing IIRIRA § 309(c)(1), 110 Stat. at 3009-625). Immigration Judges should con-
tinue to adjudicate those cases as they arise.