P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60086 Su m m ar y Cal endar
M UHAMM AD S AR F RA Z KHA N P et i t i on er
v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

O r de r s o f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 79 008 104
B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Pet i t i o ne rM uham m adSa r f r az Khan, anat i ve a nd c i t i z e n o f Pak i s t an, p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w o f

t h e o r de rof

t he Bo a r do f

I m m i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BIA) den yi n g h i s m o t i on t o reopen h i s r em oval proceedi n g. Kh an al so pet i t i on s f or r e v ie w o f th e B IA ’ s o r d e rd e n y in gh is m o tio n t o r e c o n s id e rits d e n ia l o f h is m o t i o n t o r e o pe n. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60086

2 A n i m m i gr a tion ju dg e (IJ) ordered K h an rem ovedaf t er he conceded r e m o v a b il it y . T h e B IAa ff ir m e dth a to r d e rin A u g u s t2 0 0 5 a n dd e n ie dKh a n ’s m ot i on for reconsi derati on i n O ct ober 200 5. W e di sm i ssed Kh an ’ s pet i t i on f or rev ie w a s u n tim ely, de n i ed h i s p eti ti on f or re view of th e B IA ’ s d ecisi on n ot to r e c o n s id e rits o r d e r , a n dd e n ie dh is m o tio n to s ta yre m o v a l. SeeK han v. G on zales , 2 4 3 F
. A p p ’ x2 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). In A u g u st 2 0 0 7 , m o re th a n tw o y e a rs a fterth e B IAd e n ied h im re li e f, K a h n file d a m o tio n w ith th e B IA to r e o p e n h is r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g . H e c onc ede d unti m el i nes s butas se r t ed t hathe had be c om e e l i gibl e f order ivat ive adj us t m e nt o f s t at us af t e r t he BI A ha d r e nde r e d i t s de c i s i o n. H e l ater sup pl em en t ed h i s m ot i on t o reopen by al l egi n g t h at h i s pri or coun selha d been in e ffe c tiv e a n dth a t h e w a s e n tit le d to r e m e d yth a t in e ffe c tiv e n e s s b yh a v in gh is r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in gre o p e n e d
. T h e B IA d e n ie d th e m o tio n to r e o p e n a s u n tim e ly forh a v in gb e e n filedm o re th a n 9 0 d a y s a fterits p rio r o rd e r d e n y in gKh a n re li e f. I ta l s o r ej e c t e d Khan’ s c l ai m o f i ne f fe c t ive a s s i s t anc e o f c o uns e la s b e i ng uns upp o r t ed by t h e ev i de nc e . Addit i o nall y, i tde c l i ne d t o r e o pe n hi s c as e s ua s po nt e . Khan m o ve d f o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n, b utt hatm o t i o n was de ni e d. K h an contends that hi s r em oval p ro ceed i n g shou l d h ave been reopened desp i t e t h e un t i m el i n ess of h i s m ot i on . H e assert s t h at r eopen i n g i s w arran t ed b eca u se a ch a n ge i n h i s w i fe’ s i m m i gr a ti on s tatu s p rese n teda n ew op p ortu n i ty fo rh im to a dju s th is s t a t u s a n da v e r tr e m o v a la n db e c a u s e h is p r io rc o u n s e l’s i n effectiven ess l eft K h a n i gn ora n t of h i s ri gh ts an dren d ere dh i s m oti on to r eo pen unt i m ely. K h an ’ s at t em pt t o dem on st rat e t h at exce p t i on alcircum st an ces exi st ed w ith inth e m e a n in gof 8 C .F .R
. § 1 0 0 3 .23 (b )(4)(ii) fails b e ca u se h e d idn o t sa tisfy t h at s ubs e c t i o n’ s c o nj unc t ive r e quir e m e ntt hatt he m o t i o n t o r e o pe n b e f i l ed w ith in 1 8 0 d a y s a fte rth e re m o v a l o r d e r . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(4 )(ii); seealso 8 C. F. R. § 100 3. 2 (provi di n g t h at th e sec t i on ’ s 90- da y peri od f or f i l i n g a m ot i on t o reopen rem ov a lpr oce ed i n gs i n the B IAdo es n ot a p p l y t o m oti on s b rou gh t pu rsu a n t t oN o. 08- 60086

3 § 1 003. 23(b) ( 4) (i i) )
. A dist r i c tc our tnee d notaddr es s t he i ss ue o f ex c ept i onal c i r c u ms t a n c e s i f

t h e m o t i o n t o d o s o i s n o tf i l e dwit h i n t h e t i me a l l o we db yl a w. Bec aus e o f

Khan’ s dil at o r i ne s s , r e o pe ni ng de pe nde d ent i r e l y o n as ua s p o n te m o tio n b ye ith e rt h e B IAo rth e IJ
. S ee R am os- B on i l la v. Mu ka sey , 543 F .3d 2 1 6 , 2 2 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( sta tin gth a t “are q u e st fo r e q u ita b le to llin go f a t i m e- or n u m ber- barred m ot i on t o reopen on t h e basi s of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce o f cou n selis ” e s s e nt i all y a c o nt e nt i o n t hatt he BI A, o rt he I J, s ho ul d ha ve s ua s p o n t e r e o p e n e dt h e p r o c e e d i n gb a s e du p o n t h e do c t r i n e o f e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g)
. As th e p rov i sion f

or su asp on te reo p en i n g v ests th e B IAw i th com p l ete d i scre ti on to d en y u n ti m ely m oti on s to reop en , th i s cou rt “h a s n o lega lstan d a rdbyw h i ch to j u d ge the
. . . ru l i n g, an dthe refore
. . . l a ck s j u ri sd i cti on . ” I d. a t 2 2 0 ; § 1 0 0 3 .2(a ). K h a n ’ s p e tit io n fo rr e v ie w o f th e o r d e ro f r e m o v a l is D IS M IS S E D , a n dh is p e tit io n t o r e v i e w th e o r d e rd e n y in gre c o n s id e r a tio n o f h is m o tio n to re o p e n is D E N IE D
. S ee B ri n km an n v. D allas C ty. D epu ty S h err if f A bn er , 813 F. 2d 744, 7 4 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) (s ta tin gth a t t h e fa ilu r e to b r i e f i s s u e s a d e q u a te lyis e q u iva len t to n o t h a v in ga p p e a led ).