2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-6-2009

Mahmoud Shabayek v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2869

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Mahmoud Shabayek v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 500.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/500
BLD-319 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-2869

 

MAHMOUD GHARIB MAHMOUD SHABAYEK,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A98-496-717)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Dorothy A. Harbeck

 

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 24, 2009

Before: MCKEE, FISHER AND CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 6, 2009)

 

OPINION

 

PER CURIAM

Mahmoud Gharib Mahmoud Shabayek, a citizen of Egypt, entered the United

States as a visitor in 2006. After he overstayed his visa, the Government charged him
2

with removability in March 2007. He appeared before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and

requested voluntary departure, which the IJ granted on June 1, 2007. Shabayek was

permitted to voluntarily depart the United States within 90 days. 

On August 22, 2007, Shabayek married a United States citizen named Charlotte

Loving. On September 28, 2007, he moved to open the removal proceedings, asking for

reopening to allow him to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. With

his motion to reopen, he filed his marriage certificate and a Form I-130 Petition for Alien

Relative. The Government opposed the motion, noting that Shabayek was not the

beneficiary of an approved I-130 Petition and that, in any event, Shabayek could not show

that his marriage was bona fide.

The IJ denied the motion to reopen based on Shabayek’s “failure to meet the

standards of Matter of Verlarde, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (BIA 2002), and Matter of

Laureano, 19 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 1983).” R. 22 (IJ’s order – the quoted language is the

analysis in its entirety). Shabayek appealed to the BIA. The BIA dismissed the appeal. 

The BIA ruled that Shabayek had not made a prima facie showing that his marriage was

bona fide. The BIA additionally noted that even if Shabayek had made such a showing,

the denial “would have been justified” because the motion was untimely. The BIA also

ruled that because Shabayek had remained in the country beyond the period of voluntary

departure, he had become ineligible for adjustment of status. 

Shabayek filed a petition for review. The Government filed a motion for summary

affirmance. The Government argues that the BIA’s decision should be summarily
3

affirmed because Shabayek failed to establish his eligibility for adjustment of status. The

Government also contends that Shabayek’s failure to voluntarily depart bars him from

being eligible for an adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1)(B).

Although Shabayek did not file a response to the motion for summary affirmance,

he filed a motion for a stay of removal. He notes that he is married to a United States

citizen who is disabled and requires his assistance. He further notes that the I-130

petition remains pending. The Government opposes the stay motion, arguing that

Shabayek does not show a likelihood of success on the merits of his petition or that the

equities otherwise weigh in favor of a stay. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an order denying a

motion to reopen under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard. See Guo v.

Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 562 (3d Cir. 2004). The BIA’s discretionary decision will not be

disturbed unless it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. See Guo, 386 F.3d at 562. 

Applying this standard, we conclude that there is no substantial issue on appeal. 

Accordingly, we will summarily deny Shabayek’s petition for review. See Third Circuit

LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

Shabayek premises his claim for reopening on his purported eligibility for

adjustment of status. The BIA may grant a motion to reopen for adjustment of status

based on a motion to reopen for adjustment of status in light of a marriage 

‘where the following factors are present: (1) the motion is timely filed; (2)

the motion is not numerically barred by the regulations; (3) the motion is

not barred by In re Shaar, 21 I. & N. Dec. 541 (BIA 1996), or on any other
 1

The BIA has since ruled that motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status based

on a marriage entered into after removal proceedings are commenced may not be denied

simply because the Government opposes it. See Matter of Lamus-Pava, 25 I. & N. Dec.

61 (BIA 2009). 

 2

We conclude that it is unnecessary to reach the issue whether Shabayek’s failure to

voluntarily depart bars him from being eligible for an adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229c(d)(1)(B). 

4

procedural grounds; (4) the motion presents clear and convincing evidence

indicating a strong likelihood that the [alien's] marriage is bona fide; and (5)

the Service either does not oppose the motion or bases its opposition solely

on Matter of Arthur . . . .’

Bhiski v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 363, 371 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Matter of Velarde-Pacheco,

23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002)).1

 Shabayek, who got married approximately two

months after the voluntary departure order (to a possibly thrice-married woman who had

filed I-130 petitions for other husbands), did not present evidence to show that his

marriage was bona fide. He only filed his marriage certificate and a Form I-130 Petition

for Alien Relative. Furthermore, as the BIA noted, the motion, filed beyond the 90 day

deadline for a motion to reopen, was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). 

For these reasons, we conclude that the BIA’s order was not arbitrary, irrational, or

contrary to law, and that Shabayek presents no substantial issue on appeal.2

 We grant the

Government’s motion, and we will deny the petition for review. Shabayek’s motion for a

stay of removal is also denied.