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 5-19-2010 

# S he ri f G amel Gh a

bro s 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 . 08-3534

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 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
" S he ri f G amel Gh a

br os v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1320. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1320P S5- 125 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. 08- 3534

___________ SH ER I F G A M EL G H A BR O S, 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 96- 427- 350) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e D ani el M ei s ner

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

M ay18, 2010 B efore: S M ITH , F ISH E R and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay19, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM2

Sher i f G amel G habr os , pr ocee di ng pro se , pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. Forthe r eas ons that fol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. G hab ros i s a ci t i zen o f E gypt w ho w as adm i t t ed to the U nit ed S t at es i n 1 99 6 as a
v isi tor fo r bu sine ss. H e o v erstay ed h is visa an d w as p lace d in rem o v al pro ce ed ing s. In J une 2005, the I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed G habr os ’ appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of
rem o v al an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re. I n Jan u ary2 0 0 7 , the B IA di s m i s s ed G habr os ’ s ubs equentappea l . A tthe t i m e, G habr os w as r epr es ent ed by C ar ol i ne D os s . M s . D os s negl ect ed t o i nform M r . G habr os unt i l near l ya mont h aft ert he f a c t th a t th e B IA d ism iss e d h is a p p e a l, an d sh e d id n o t in f o rm G h a b ro s th a t f

a ilu re to f

ile a pet i t i on forr evi ew w i thi n 30 day s of the B oar d’ s or derw oul d for fei thi s r i ghtt o appea l that deci si on . B ecause she w as not adm i t t ed to pract i ce bef ore the C ou rtof A pp eal s, D os s r ecomm ended thatG habr os hi r e anotheratt orneyt o fi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew , but agr eed t o fi l e a mot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on G habr os ’ r ece ntm arr i age t o a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. D os s fi l ed the mot i on t o r eopen, butthe B I A deni ed i ti n A pr i l 2007, r eas oni ng that there w as i nsuff

i ci ent evi den ce t o co nclude t hat G hab ros’ m arr i age w as bona f i de . G habr os hi r ed a ne w att orney , w ho fi l ed a mot i on t o r econs i derthe B oar d’ s A pr i l 2007 deci s i on. I n thatm ot i on, G habr os s oughtt o offe raddi t i onal evi dence thathi s m arr i age3

w as l egi t i m at e. T he B oar d deni ed the mot i on t o r econs i der , and G habr os fi l ed a pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w, wh i c h we d i s mi s s e d a s u n t i me l y . S e e Gh a b r o s v . At t ’ yGe n . , C. A. N o . 0 7 -39 0 9 (ord er e n tered O ctob er 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 ). I n A pr i l 2008, G habr os , r epr es ent ed bya thi r d att orney , fi l ed w i th the B I A another
m oti on t o reope n o n the basi s of D oss’ s al l eged i neff ect i ve assi st ance. G hab ros al so i ncl uded a r eques tforthe B oar d t o r ei s s ue i t s or i gi nal deci s i on s o thathe coul d fi l e a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew . T h e B o a rd d e n ied th e m o tio n in Ju ly2 0 0 8 , rea so n in g th a t it
w a s tim e - a n d n u m b e r- b a rr e d , a n d th a t G h a b ro s f a ile d to q u a lif

yf o r e q u ita b le to llin g . G habr os then fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. II. W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on. See Fadi ga v. A t t ’ yG en. , 488 F. 3d 142, 153 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . U nderthats t andar d, w e w i l l not r ever s e the B oar d’ s deci s i on unl es s “i ti s arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” I d. (q u o tin g S e v o ian v . A sh c ro f t, 29 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 )). B e c a u se G h a b ro s is pr ocee di ng pro se , w e c on s true hi s a r gu ment s l i be r a l l y . Se e H a i ne s v. K e rne r , 40 4 U. S. 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ). G habr os does notdi s put e thathi s s econd mot i on t o r eopen, fi l ed more than a y ear aft erthe B oar d uphel d t he I J ’ s or derof r emoval , w as t i m e- and number
- barr ed. See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7)(A ) (estab li sh ing n u m b er a n d ti m e li m it ati o n s o n m o ti o n s to reo p en ); 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) ( s ame) . R ather , he cha l l enges the B I A det erm i nat i on thathe4

fai l ed t o demonstr at e ( 1) compl i ance w i th the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s forr eopeni ng b a s e d o n a n a t t o r n e y ’ s d e f i c i e n tp e r f

o r ma n c e a n d ( 2 ) d u e d i l i g e n c e i n p u r s u i n g h i s c l a i m. W e nee d notcons i derw hetherG habr os ’ s ubm i s s i ons demonstr at ed s ubs t ant i al compl i ance w i th M att erof Lozada, 19 I & N D ec. 637 ( B I A 1988) , s ee X u Y ong L u v. A s hcr oft , 259 F. 3d 127, 132- 35 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , beca us e eve n i f he di d, w e agr ee thathe di d notdemonstr at e due di l i gence i n pur s ui ng hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m , and w as ther efor e notent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. A n al i en s eeki ng t o t ol l the l i m i t at i ons per i od i n w hi ch t o fi l e a mot i on t o r eopen m us tdemonstr at e thathe exe r ci s ed due di l i gence . See M ahmood v. G onzal es , 427 F. 3d 2 4 8 , 2 5 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). H e re , G h a b ro s d id n o t f ile a n e th ics g rie v a n c e u n til M a rc h 2 0 0 8 : ab o u t 14 m o n ths a fter the B IA d ism issed h is fir st ap p ea l, an d 1 1 m o n ths a fter the B IA deni ed hi s fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen. A nd he made no att empt t o r ai s e the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance i s s ue i n hi s couns el ed mot i on t o r econs i der . O n thos e bas es , the B I A r eas oned th a t G h a b ro s d e m o n s tr a te d a la c k o f d ilig e n c e in p u rs u in g h is in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im . G iv e n th e sig n if

ica n t d e lay fro m th e tim e o f D o ss ’s a lleg e d d e f

icie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e u n til G habr os t ook act i on t o r eopen hi s cas e on thatbas i s , w e ca nnots aythatthe B oar d abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen. See i d. A s to G h ab ros’ req u est th at th e B o ard reissue it s o ri g inal d ec isi o n , the B o ard
re a so n e d th a t G h a b ro s’ c irc u m sta n c e s w e re n o t so e x c e p tio n a l as to w a rra n t su a sp o n te re o p e n in g . G h a b ro s g iv e s n o g o o d re a so n to q u e stio n th a t as se ss m e n t.5

Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.