2007 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 7-16-2007 

# Rahm an 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 . 05-3487

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_2007

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 2007 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 " R ahm an v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 770. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/770H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof * Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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 o. 05- 3487 AZ AM RA HM AN,

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 T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

( N o. A 70- 651- 119) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y10, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es,

SH A PI R O , D i s tr i ctJ udge

* ( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y16, 2007)

OP I NI ONW e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w f i n a l o r d e r s o f

r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C. 1 § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1), bu t are w ith o u t j u ri sd ict ion to rev iew d en ial s o f d iscreti o n aryreli ef u n d er 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) . B eca us e the dec i s i on t o denycanc el l at i on of r emoval her e w as d is c re tio n a ry, w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w it. Me n d ez-Mo ra n c h e l v. A sh c ro ft , 338 F. 3d 1 7 6 , 1 7 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e revi ew con st i tuti on al qu est i on s de novo and fi ndi ngs of fa ct u n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . Mudr i c v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 6 9 F . 3 d 9 4 , 9 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 2 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge A zam R ahman i s a nat i ve of Bangl ades h w ho s eeks r evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s deci s i on thatadopt ed and a ffi r m ed an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deni al o f d isc re tio n a ryc a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l an d d e n ied R a h m a n ’s m o tio n to re o p e n h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s o n c laim s o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. R a h m a n h a s f a iled to demonstr at e thathe s uffe r ed pr ej udi ce bycouns el ’ s per form ance , and w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r e v i e w th e d i s c r e t i o n a r yd e n i a l o f r e l i e f. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1 R ahman i s fathert o t w o chi l dr en, ages fourand one, both U . S. ci t i zens . I n 2002, he w as s erved w i th a not i ce t o appea rand cha r ged w i th r emovabi l i tyas an al i en w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thouti ns pect i on. R ahman cl ai m s thati f he i s r emoved, he w i l l be for ced t o t ake hi s chi l dr en w i th hi m t o B angl ades h, w her e theyw i l l notr ece i ve adequa t e hea l thcar e. B eca us e of s ubs t andar d heal thcar e i n B angl ades h, he ar gues , the r emoval w i l l r es ul ti n “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p” t o hi s chi l dr en, for wh i c h h e i s e l i g i b l e f

o rd i s c r e t i o n a ryc a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C.T his provis i on st at es: 2 T he A t t orneyG ener al m aycanc el r emoval of, and adj us tt o the s t atus of an a lien law f

u llya d m itt e d f

o r p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e , an a lien w h o is i nadmi s s i bl e ordeport abl e fr om the U ni t ed St at es i f the al i en- (A ) ha s b ee n p h y sicall yp rese n t i n the U n it ed S tat es f o r a c o n tin u o u s p e rio d o f

n o t les s th a n 1 0 y e a rs im m e d iate ly pr ece di ng the dat e of s uch appl i cat i on; ( B ) has been a per s on of good m or al char act erdur i ng s uch per i od; ( C ) has notbeen c onvi ct ed of a n offe ns e unders ect i on 1 1 8 2 (a )(2 ), 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 ), o r 1 2 2 7 (a )(3 ) o f th is titl e , su b

jec t to [ in sta n c e s w h e re th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l ex e rc ise s d isc re tio n to gr anta w ai verunder§ 1227( a) ( 7) of thi s t i t l e] ; and ( D ) es t abl i s hes thatr emoval w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o the al i en' s s pous e, par ent , or c h ild , w h o is a c iti z e n o f th e U n ited S tate s o r a n a lien law f u lly admi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence . 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (b) (1) . T he im m i grat i on j ud ge resol ved qu est i on s r egardi ng the fir st thr ee e l ement s i n favorof R ahman, des pi t e ce r t ai n gaps i n the evi dence . T he G overnm ent does notcont es tthos e rul i ngs . A ti s s ue i s the fourth pr ong— w hetherR ahman’ s chi l dr en w oul d s uffe r“exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p. ” 3 § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ). H e a lso a rg u e s th a t h is c o u n se l’s f a ilu re to d e v e lo p a re c o rd to 2 demonstr at e thathi s chi l dr en w oul d s uffe rthi s type of ha r ds hi p i n B angl ades h pr ej udi ced hi s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on. T he I J found thatR ahman fai l ed t o demonstr at e thathe w as el i gi bl e for c a n c e lla tio n b e c a u s e h e f a ile d to p ro v e th a t h e w o u ld h a v e to ta k e h is c h ild re n w ith h im . A c c o rd in g to th e IJ, R a h m a n f a iled to e licit tes tim o n yf ro m h is w if

e o r in -la w s, w ith4

w h o m h e a n d h is c h ild re n liv e d , to c o n v in c e th e IJ th a t th e c h ild re n m u st a c c o m p a n yh im to B a n g lad e sh if

h e w e re re m o v e d . N e v e rth e les s, a ss u m in g th a t R a h m a n w o u ld h a v e to t ake them, he di d notdemonstr at e thathi s chi l dr en w oul d s uffe rhar ds hi p i n B angl ades h, m uch l es s “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p, ” bec aus e he pr es ent ed no evi dence thatthe medi cal s y s t em i n B angl ades h i s s ubpar . T he I J ther efor e deni ed R ahman’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval and gr ant ed hi s appl i cat i on for vol unt arydepartur e. O n a p p e a l b e f

o re th e B IA , R a h m a n a rg u e d th a t h e d id n o t p re se n t th e re q u isite e v id e n c e b e c a u se h e w a s in e f f e c tiv e lya ss iste d b yh is f o rm e r a tto rn e y , w h o f

a iled to d e v e lo p a re c o rd to d e m o n stra te th e sig n if ica n t su f f e rin g h is c h ild re n w o u ld e n d u re if for ced t o r eturn w i th R ahman t o B angl ades h. R ahman submi t t ed t o the B I A evi dence t hat inclu d ed a so cial w o rke r’s psy ch o log ical asse ssm en t, stat ing that the in fe ri o r he alth ca re sy st em , severe poll uti on , and preval ence o f A ID S w ou l d p ut the ch i l dren atri sk (p a rticu lar lyth e o ld e st s o n , w h o su f f e rs f ro m a sth m a a n d a llerg ies ). T h e B IA n o ted th a t, even i f R ahman had s at i s fi ed al l the r equi r ement s of M at t erof Lozada , 19 I . & N . D ec. 6 3 7 (B IA ), a

ff’d , 8 5 7 F . 2 d 1 0 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (go v ern ing inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce claim s), none of the evi dence s ubm i t t ed on appe al demonstr at ed thatthe chi l dr en s uffe r ed fr om an yseriou s m ed ical co n d it ion o r th at th e h ea lth an d m ed ical reso u rce s in B an g lade sh are so d e f icie n t as to c re a te f

o r th e c h ild re n a h a rd sh ip so se v e re to q u a lifya s e x tre m e ly unus ual . A s the pr ej udi ce pr ong w as notm et , R ahman w as notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on theT h e r e i s a f i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n w o r th m e n t i o n i n g a b o u tth e a d v o c a c yh e r e . We 3 n o rm a lly w o u ld o v e rl o o k th e m yri a d typ o g ra p h ic a l e rr o rs in th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s B ri e f. E . g. , G o v t’s B r. at 3 (“ h e w a n ted to w ith d ra w a l [ sic ]” ), 4 (“ R a h m a n a lso a d m itt e d th a t h is ol des ts ong [ sic ] s poke B engal i ”) , 6 ( “R ahman al s o s ubm i t t ede [ sic ] a documentthat as ked hi s el des ts on’ s s chool t oexcus e [ sic ] h im ” ), 8 (“ f a ili n g to . . . o f

f e r th g a t [ sic ] cou nsel an o pp ortun i tyt o respon d d oo m s R ahm an’s cl ai m ). O f part i cularcon cern here i s, i n addi t i on t o t he typogr aphi cal err or s , the i ncorr ectr efe r ence t o the pet i t i onerR ahman as “C hung. ” W e expe cta hi ghers t andar d fr om att orney s pr act i ci ng atourbarand forthem t o t ake mor e ca r e w i th t hei rw r i t t en s ubm i s s i ons , es peci al l yw hen theycome fr om the D e p a rt m e n t o f

J u s tic e . W e tru s t th a t in th e f u tu re th is a d m o n itio n w ill b e h e e d e d . 5 me r i t s o ro n a n i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m. F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d b yth e IJ a n d th e B IA , w e d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . W e a lso d ism iss th e m o tio n to w a iv e o ra l ar g u m e n t as m o o t. 3