an alien is generally entitled to have deportation proceedings continued or reopened, following an order of deportation, where there is currently pending an immigrant visa petition, filed on the alien’s behalf, along with an adjustment of status application, where the visa petition and status adjustment application are “prima facie approvable.” See id. at 657; see also Hassan, 110 F.3d at 492. The BIA emphasized in Garcia, however, that it did not intend to establish an inflexible rule, stating: It clearly would not be an abuse of discretion for the [IJ] to summarily deny a request for a continuance or a motion to reopen upon his determination that the visa petition is frivolous or that the adjustment application would be denied on statutory grounds or in the exercise of dis .1990) (<HOLDING>). Unlike this case, Garcia involved an alien
holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding no abuse of discretion where ij denied aliens request for continuance because alien had no immigrant visa available and it was unlikely attorney general would exercise discretion to permit excludable alien to stay holding that the ij did not abuse his discretion in denying request for further continuance where the ij granted previous request holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing a defendants surprise fact witness to testify because the plaintiff did not request a continuance