2010 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 10-15-2010 

# Ro s a Angui s a c a 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 . 09-4725

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Ros a An gui s a ca v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 416. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/416NOT 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 o. 09- 4725

___________ RO S A P AT RI CI A ANGU I S AC A, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ 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 079- 701- 589) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

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

O ct ober13, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober15, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM R os a Patr i ci a A ngui s aca pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on of the B oar d of I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BI A) . F o rt h 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 f o rr e v i e w. A ngui s aca , a nat i ve of Ecuador , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1992. I n 2002, s he2

w as char ged as r emovabl e as an al i en w ho ent er ed w i t houta val i d entr ydocument . She appl i ed forcanc el l at i on of r emoval and vol unt arydepartur e. I n a dec i s i on dat ed M ar ch 20, 2007, t he I J found A ngui s aca r emovabl e and de ni ed herappl i cat i ons forcanc el l at i on o f re m o v al an d v o lun taryd ep arture. In a Ju ly2 0 0 8 d ec isi o n , the B IA ag ree d w ith the IJ t hatA ngui s aca had notdemonstr at ed thatherr emoval w oul d caus e exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o herU ni t ed St at es ci t i zen hus band and c hi l dr en. A ngui s aca di d notfi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. O n J une 1, 2009, A ngui s aca fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen w i t h t he B I A . She ar gued th a t h e r p ri o r c o u n s e l d id n o t r e c e iv e a b ri e f in g s c h e d u le o r t h e B IA ’s J u ly 2 0 0 8 d e c is io n . She r eques t ed thatt he B I A r ei s s ue i t s deci s i on s o t hats he coul d fi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew orr eopen i t s deci s i on t o addr es s err or s on t he partof the I J w i t h r es pectt o herappl i cat i on f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. T h e B IA d e ter m in e d th a t th e m o tio n to re o p e n w a s u n tim e ly and thatA ngui s aca w as notent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. A ngui s aca fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on f o rr e v i e w. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e re v iew th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n to re o p e n f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . F ilja v . G o n z a le s , 4 4 7 F .3 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r th is s tan d a rd , w e w ill re v e rse th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n lyif it i s “ a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, 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 . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e B IA ’s f a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s m u st b e u p h e ld if th e ya re su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e . L iu v. A t t or neyG ener al , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . U nderthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence3

s t andar d, t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs can be r ej ect ed onl yi f “a nyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” I d. ( quot i ng I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 )) . A n al i en mayfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen w i t h the B I A “w i t hi n 90 day s of the dat e of e n t r yo f a f i n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d e ro f r e m o v a l . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C ) ( i ) . We have he l d t hatt he dea dl i ne form ot i ons t o r eopen maybe equi t abl yt ol l ed on the bas i s of inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. S ee M ah m o o d v . G o n za les, 4 2 7 F . 3 d 2 4 8 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 2005) . I n M ahmood, w e conc l uded thatthe al i en’ s cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w er e s uffi ci entt o pr ovi de a ba s i s forequi t abl e t ol l i ng butthatthe al i en had not act ed w i t h di l i gence . W e not ed thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng i s an extr aor di naryr emedy . I d. at 253. C iti n g M a h m o o d , the B IA a d d re ss e d w h e th e r A n g u isa c a w a s e n tit led to e q u itab le toll ing ev en tho u g h sh e h ad n o t al lege d inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. T h e B IA det erm i ned thatA ngui s aca w as notent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng beca us e s he had notact ed w i t h r eas onabl e di l i gence upon l earni ng of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. I tnot ed thatA ngui s aca lea rn e d o f

th e B IA ’s d e c isio n in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 9 b u t d id n o t f ile h e r m o tio n to re o p e n u n til J u n e 2 0 0 9 . I n herbr i ef, A ngui s aca s t at es thats he cons ul t ed w i t h hercurr entcouns el atthe end o f Ja n u a ry2 0 0 9 . S h e c o n ten d s th a t h e r c o u n se l n e e d e d to re c e iv e a n d re v iew th e f ile befor e he c oul d det erm i ne thatnei t herA ngui s aca norhercouns el r ece i ved the br i efi ngIn h e r p e tit io n f o r re v iew , A n g u isa c a sta ted th a t sh e lea rn e d o f th e B IA ’s d e c isio n in 1 late Ja n u a ry2 0 0 9 b u t th a t itto o k tw o m o n th s to re c e iv e th e re c o rd a n d u n til A p ril 2 n d to o b ta in a n a f

f id a v it f ro m p ri o r c o u n s e l. T h e a f f id a v it b yc o u n s e l is d a te d A p ri l 2 , 2 0 0 9 . A . R . at 48 . S h e a sserted that ittoo k u n ti l M ay2 0 0 9 to g et an af fid av itfro m an ex p ert w itn ess re g ard ing the c o n d it ion s in E cu ad o r. W e not e thati n hernot i ce of appea l t o t he B I A fr om the I J ’ s deci s i on, A ngui s aca 2 ar gued thatt he I J ’ s deci s i on w as l egal l yand fa ctual l yfl aw ed butdi d notas s ertany al l egat i ons of bi as ort r ans cr i pt i on err or s . A . R . at148. 4 s chedul e ort he B I A ’ s deci s i on. She as s ert s thati tw as notunt i l M ay2009 t hats he w as abl e t o cont actpr i orcouns el t o s i gn an af fi davi ts t at i ng thathe had notr ece i ved the b ri ef ing sch ed u le or B IA ’s de cisi o n . H o w ev er, th ese fa cts w ere n o t prese n ted to the B IA 1 i n t he mot i on t o r eopen. A ngui s aca di d notar gue forequi t abl e t ol l i ng ordi s cus s the t i m el i nes s of the mot i on atal l . B eca us e the fa ct s A ngui s aca ar gues t o s uppor ther a r g u me n tf

o re q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g we r e n o tp r e s e n t e d t o th e BI A i n th e mo t i o n t o r e o p e n , we cannotconcl ude thatt he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng herm ot i on t o r eopen on the gr ound t hats he had notact ed w i t h r eas onabl e di l i gence . A n g u isaca also arg u es th at he r ri g h ts t o d u e p roc ess w ere v iolated b ythe B IA ’s fa il u re to se rve h er w ith a b ri ef ing sch ed u le or it s Ju ly2 0 0 9 d ec isi o n . H o w ev er, A ngui s aca has nots how n t hats he w as deni ed due pr oces s bythe B I A w i t h r es pectt o her m o tio n to re o p e n . S h e h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto p re se n t h e r a rg u m e n ts a n d e v id e n c e in supp ortof h er m oti on and t he B IA con si dered an d rej ect ed them . W e need no tadd res s herar gum ent s al l egi ng bi as byt he I J and mi s t akes i n t he tr ans cr i pt i on of the hea r i ng as t he I J ’ s de c i s i on i s no tbe fo r e us . St on e v. I N S, 51 4 U. S. 38 6, 40 5 ( 19 95 ) ; N oc on v. I N S, 25

7 8 9 F . 2 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 3 -34 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). F o rt h 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 f o rr e v i e w.