2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-5-2011 

# F arag v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2551

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " F ar ag v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2023. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/20231 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 08- 2551 & 09- 3951

___________ GAB E R F AR AG, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 095- 831- 823) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary4, 2011 B efor e: M cK E E , C hi ef J udge, SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary5, 2011 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM G aberFar ag pet i t i ons forr evi ew of tw o deci s i ons of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ( BI A) . F o rth e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. F a r a g , a n a t i v e o f

E g yp t , e n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n 1 9 9 7 a s a v i s i t o r . On2

A p ri l 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , F a ra g w a s c h a rg e d a s re m o v a b le f o r o v e rs ta y in g h is a d m is s io n p e ri o d . Far ag conc eded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) . Far ag ar gued thathe had be en per s ecut ed i n E gypt beca us e he w as a t eac herw ho s poke t o hi s s tudent s aboutw or l d event s . A ft era hea r i ng, a n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (IJ ) d e n ied re lief a n d o rd e re d F a ra g re m o v e d to E g yp t. O n A p ril 30, 2008, the B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al . Far ag fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w hi ch w as docket ed atC . A . N o. 08- 2551. O n A pr i l 15, 2009, Far ag fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen w i th the B I A . H e ar gued that hi s ci r cumst ance s had cha nged bec aus e he w as the bene fi ci aryof an a ppr oved al i en relati v e p eti ti o n w ith a c u rren t pri o ri tyd ate. T h e B IA d en ied th e m o ti o n as u n ti m ely . It al s o concl uded thatFar ag’ s el i gi bi l i tyforadj us t m entof s t atus di d notcons t i tut e an exce pt i onal s i tuat i on thatw arr ant ed s ua s pont e r eopeni ng. Far ag fi l ed a pe t i t i on for re v ie w w h ic h w a s d o c k e te d a t N o . 0 9 -3 9 5 1 . M ot i on t o r eopen W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f

oran abus e of di s cr et i on. Fi l j a v. G onzal es , 447 F. 3d 241, 251 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r th is s tan d a rd , w e m a yre v e rse th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n lyif it i s “a rbitrary , irrati o n al, o r co n tr aryto law . ” S ev o ian v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir . 2002) . A n al i en mayfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen w i th the B I A “w i thi n 90 day s of the dat e of en tryo f a fin al ad m inistrati v e o rde r of rem o v al. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7)(C )(i ).3

T he B I A deni ed Far ag’ s m ot i on t o r eopen a s unt i m el y . W hi l e Far ag di s cus s es t he m er i t s of the mot i on t o r eopen, he fa i l s t o expl ai n w hyhi s m ot i on t o r eopen s houl d have been c ons i der ed t i m el y . H e does notar gue thathi s m ot i on w as t i m el yunderany exce pt i on t o the 90- daydeadl i ne. Far ag’ s el i gi bi l i tyt o adj us thi s s t atus does not cons t i tut e an e xcept i on t o t he dea dl i ne form ot i ons t o r eopen. Far ag has notdemonstr at ed th a tth e B I A a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n yi n g h i s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n a s u n t i m e l y. W ith h o ld in g a n d C A T c laim T o b e e li g ible fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, F ara g m u st de m o n str ate tha t i t i s m o re l i kel ythan notthathi s l i fe w oul d be thr eat ened i n E gypton acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . T o be el i gi bl e for re lief u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re , F a ra g m u st d e m o n stra te th a t itis m o re lik e ly than notthathe w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o E gypt . 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . W e may n o t re v e rse th e B IA ’s d e c isio n u n les s th e re c o rd e v id e n c e w o u ld c o m p e l a r e a so n a b le fa c t - fi nd e rt o c on c l ud e tha tFa r a g h a d methi s bu r de n. I N S v. El i a s - Zac a r i a s , 50 2 U. S. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). F a ra g a rg u e s th a t h e is c e rta in h e w o u ld b e in im m in e n t d a n g e r o f to rtu re if re m o v e d to E g yp t b e c a u se h e is a m e m b e r o f th e tea c h in g p ro f

e ss io n a n d h e a ltere d h is p a ss p o rt to lea v e E g yp t. H o w e v e r, h e p o in ts to n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to su p p o rt th is cont ent i on. Far ag s t at es thatbeca us e he tut or ed s tudent s and enc our aged the di s cus s i on of t opi cs otherthan mat hemat i cs i n hi s cl as s r oom , he w as thr eat ened bys chool1. 1 Far ag al s o ar gues thathe w i l l be per s ecut ed as a mem berof the s oci al gr oup con si st i ng of teachers . H ow ever, F arag nev er ar gu ed b efore t he B IA that he w as a m em ber of a social group ; thu s, he h as not exhau st ed h i s adm i nis trat i ve rem edies , an d w e lac k juri sd ict ion o v er tha t cl aim . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ). 4 a d m in istra to rs w ith a tra n sf e r to a re m o te r u ra l sc h o o l. H e a ss e rts th a t th is w o u ld re su lt i n a paydecr eas e and hi s bei ng aw ayfr om hi s fami l yand thathe coul d nots ur vi ve under s uch thr eat s . I n L i v. A t t orneyG ener al , 400 F. 3d 157, 168 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , w e hel d that “the d eli b era te i m p o sit ion o f se v ere ec o n o m ic disad v an tage w h ich th rea tens a p eti ti o n er’s life o r f re e d o m m a yc o n stitu te p e rse c u tio n .” H e re , the re is n o th in g in th e re c o rd to s u p p o r tF a r a g ’ s c l a i m th a tth e p o s s i b l e p a yd e c r e a s e wo u l d th r e a t e n h i s l i f e o rf r e e d o m. 1 T he r ecor d does notcompel , oreven s uppor t , a fi ndi ng thatFar ag w i l l m or e l i kel ythan n o t b e p e rse c u ted o r to rtu re d if re m o v e d to E g yp t. F o rth e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w.