### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T JU N E 10, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15973 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 76- 541- 302 D U C E P P E D E S O G U S T E , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( J une 10, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The Home land Security Act of 2002, Pub.L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, was signed 1 int o l awo nN o v emb er

2 5 , 2 0 0 2 . Th eA c tc re at e d a n ewD ep artm ento f

H o m e l an d

S e curi ty, abolished the I

NS, and transf

erred its functions to the new department.

2 P e t i t i one rD uc e ppe D e s ogus t e , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , pe t i t i ons thi s C ourtf or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (B IA ) deni al of hi s m ot i on t o reopen h is c o m p le te d r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . A f te rr e v ie w , w e d is m is s h is p e titio n in p a rt, a n d d e n y it in p a rt. I . B AC KG RO UN D D e s o g u s t e i s ac i t i z e n a n d n a t i o n a l o f H a i t i . A ta n u n k n o w n p l a c e a n d t i me pr i ort o J a nua ry 11, 2001, he e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i l l e ga l l y , w i thoutbe i ng a dm i tt e d orpa r ol e d. O n J a nua ry 11, 2001, the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i z a t i on S ervi ce (I N S ) i ss ued D es og ust e ano t i ce t o app ear, char gi ng thathe w as

1 re m ov abl e a s aal i en w ho w as pres enti n the U ni t ed S t at es w i tho utbei ng adm i tt ed or parol ed, i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (6)( A )( i ). O n January23 , 20 03 , D es og ust e app eare d b ef ore an Im m i grat i on Judg e ( IJ ), w h o o r d e r e d D e s o g u s te r e m o v e d to H a iti. T h e I J ’s o r d e rin d ic a te d th a t D e s o g u s te e x p r e s s lyw a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l th is d e c is io n to th e B I A , a n d D e s o g u s te d id n o t ap p e a l. O n A pri l 21 , 20 03 , D es og ust e f i l ed a m ot i on w i th the IJse eki ng t o reopen hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs ( the “ A pr i l 21, 2003 m ot i on t o r e ope n” ) . I n tha tm ot i on, D e s ogus t e c l a i m e d tha the ha d m a rr i e d aU ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n on D e c e m be r20,3

2002, a nd ha d ape ndi ng vi s ape t i t i on ba s e d upon thi s m a rr i a ge , w hi c h w a s f i l e d on A pri l 16 , 20 03 . T he IJdeni ed the A pri l 21 , 20 03 m ot i on t o reopen, re as on i ng that th e p en d in g v isa p etit io n w as in su ff icien t t o w arra n t reo p en in g D es o g u ste’s r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g b e c au s e th e d e c is io n to g r a n t th e v is aw a s w ith in th e s o le d is c r e tio n o f

th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e la n dS e c u r ity( D H S ) . D e s ogus t e di d notappe a l thi s rul i ng t o the B I A , buti ns t e a d f i l e d am ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on w i th the I Jon M a y21, 2003 ( the “ M a y21, 2003 m ot i on f or re consi dera t i on ”) . In thi s m ot i on , D es og ust e argued thatthe B IA ’ s dec i si on i n In r e V e l a r de - P a c he c o, 23 I & N D e c . 253, 256 ( B I A 2002) , i ndi c a t e d tha tape ndi ng f a m i l y - ba s e d vi s ape t i t i on j us t i f i e d r e ope ni ng ar e m ova l pr oc e e di ng. O n M a y28, 20 03 , the IJdeni ed the M ay21 , 20 03 m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , concl ud i ng that D e s ogus t e ’ s c a s e di d notm e e ta l l of the V e l a r de - P a c he c o c r i t e r i af orr e ope ni ng a ca se . S peci fi ca l l y, the IJ ’ s dec i si on i s bas ed sol el y on the grou nd thatV el ar deP ac heco requi re d thatthe go vernm entno top po se any m ot i on t o reopen, and that D e s ogus t e ’ s c a s e di d notm e e tthi s r e qui r e m e nt . D e s ogus t e appe a l e d the I J ’ s rul i ng t o th e B I A. O n A pr i l 28, 2004, the B I A a dopt e d a nd a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s M a y28, 2003 rul i ng . In addi t i on t o ado pt i ng the IJ ’ s dec i si on , the B IA op i ni on no t ed that D e s o g u s te w a s n o t e n title d to r e lie f u n d e rV e la r d e - P a c h e c o b e c au s e h e f a ile d toSpecifically , in its April 28, 2004 opini on, the B IA stated that “ [i ]f, as [Desoguste] 2 claims, he entere d into a bonafidemarriag e in Dec ember 2002, it would seem that more evidence to substantiate that marriag e would havebeen presente d. However, only a few piece s of documentar

y evidenc e were presente d and no af fidavits from any

one knowingthe couple, or indeed, f rom the couplethemselves . . . .” 4 s u b m it c le a ra n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t h is m a rr ia g e w a s b o n af id e . D e s o g u s te 2 di d notpe t i t i on thi s C ourtf orar e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s A pr i l 28, 2004 rul i ng. O n Jul y 23, 20 04 , D es og ust e f i l ed a s epar at e m ot i on t o reopen w i th the B IA ( the “ J ul y 23, 2004 m ot i on t o r e ope n” ) . D e s ogus t e a tt a c he d t o hi s J ul y23, 2004 m o tio n to r e o p e n tw e n ty - th r e e e x h ib its e v id e n c in g th a t h is m a rr ia g e w a s b o n af id e . T he e xhi bi t s i nc l ude d s e ve r a l a f f i da vi t s , ut i l i tya nd phone bi l l s , ac opy of the m arri age c ert i fi cat e, a 200 3 t ax re turn and other docum ent s i nt ended t o sho w that the m arri age i s bon a f

i de. O n O ct ob er18 , 20 04 , the B IA deni ed the Jul y 23, 20 04 m ot i on t o reopen. In i t s opi ni on , the B IA foun d thatD es og ust e c ou l d h ave pres ent ed thi s e vi dence be f or e the I Jw he n he f

i l e d hi s A pr i l 21, 2003 m ot i on t o r e ope n. I n a ddi t i on, the B IA st at ed thatthe Jul y 23, 20 04 m ot i on t o reopen w as “ di l at ory i n n ature. ” O n N ove m be r15, 2004, D e s ogus t e t i m e l yf i l e d ape t i t i on i n thi s C ourtf or r e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s O c t obe r18, 2004 de c i s i on.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Ju r i s d i c t i onTo be timely filed as to the IJ ’s April 22, 2003 order deny ing D esoguste’s April 21, 3 2003 motion to reopen, De soguste’s petition for review should havebeen f iled by May 22, 2003. To be timely

field with respe ct to the B IA’s April 28, 2004 order affirmingthe IJ ’s denial of rec onsideration, the petition for reviewshould have be en filed by May 28, 2004. 5 I n hi s br i e f

on appe a l , D e s ogus t e a r gue s a tl e ngth aboutthe va r i ous de c i s i ons m a de by the I Ja nd the B I A i n thi s c a s e . H ow e ve r , be c aus e of the s tr i c tf

i l i ng de a dl i ne tha tgove rns ourr e vi e w of i m m i gr a t i on c a s e s , w e c onc l ude tha tour j ur i s di c t i on i n thi s c a s e i s l i m i t e d t o r e vi e w i ng the B I A ’ s O c t obe r18, 2004 d e c is io n d e n y in g D e s o g u s te ’s J u ly2 3 , 2 0 0 4 m o tio n to r e o p e n . W h ile th is C o u rt g e n e r a llyh a s ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w f in a l o r d e r s o f

r e m o v a l, the pet i t i on for r evi ew m ustbe fi l ed i n thi s C ou rtw i thi n 3 0 d ay s of the order. S ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . T h is s ta tu to rytim e lim it f o rf ilin g ap e titio n f

o rr e v ie w in an i m m i grat i on proceedi ng i s “ ‘ m andat ory and j uri sdi ct i on al , ’ [and ] i s notsubj ec t to e qu itab le to llin g .” D a k a n e v . U n ite d S ta te s A tt’yG e n ., 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 2 n .3 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng S t one v. I N S , 514 U . S . 386, 405, 115 S . C t . 1537, 1549 ( 1995) ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , m ot i ons t o r e c ons i de rorm ot i ons t o r e ope n f i l e d w i th the B I A do nott ol l ore xt e nd the f i l i ng de a dl i ne . I d. D es og ust e’ s N ov em ber 15, 20 04 pet i t i on for r evi ew i n thi s C ou rtw as the r e f or e t i m e l y f

i l e d onl y w i th r e s pe c tt o the B I A ’ s O c t obe r18, 2004 de c i s i on. 3 A c c o r d in g ly , to th e e x te n t th a t D e s o g u s te a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e I Je rr e d in de ny i ng hi s A pr i l 21, 2003 m ot i on t o r e ope n, ortha tthe B I A ’ s A pr i l 28, 20046

de c i s i on e rr e d i n a f

f i rm i ng the I J ’ s de ni a l of D e s ogus t e ’ s M a y21, 2003 m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n , th is C o u rt la c k s ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rD e s o g u s te ’s a r g u m e n ts . T hus , tha tport i on of

D e s ogus t e ’ s pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w i s di s m i s s e d. S e e i d. W e now turn t o ourr e vi e w of the B I A ' s O c t obe r18, 2004 de c i s i on de ny i ng De s o g u s t e ' s J u l y 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 m o t i o n t o r e o p e n f i l e d wi th th e B I A. B . B I A ’ s O c t ob e r 18, 2004 D e c i s i on W e r evi ew the B IA ’ s deni al of D es og ust e’ s Jul y 23, 20 04 m ot i on t o reopen f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . M e

jiaR o d r ig u e z v . R e n o , 1 7 8 F .3 d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e r e g u la tio n th a t g o v e rn s m o tio n s to r e o p e n b e f o r e th e B I A s ta te s th a t a m ot i on t o reopen m ayno tbe grant ed “ un l es s i tappears t o the B oard thatevi dence soug htt o b e off

er ed i s m at er i al and w as no tavai l abl e and coul d n othave been di sc ov er ed or pres ent ed atthe form erhear i ng . . . . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (1). In i t s O ct ob er18 , 20 04 deci si on , the B IA det erm i ned thatthe evi dence pres ent ed by D es og ust e’ s Jul y 23, 20 04 m ot i on t o reopen, nam el y the tw enty- three exhi bi t s purpo rt i ng t o sho w thathi s m arri age w as bo na fi de, coul d h ave been pres ent ed t o the IJw hen D es og ust e ori gi nal l y m ov ed t o reopen h i s r em ov al p r o c e e d in g o n A p r il 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 . W e c a n n o t s a yth a t th is is a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . T h e d o c u m e n ts s u b m itte d b yD e s o g u s te in h is J u ly2 4 , 2 0 0 4 m o tio n to r e ope n c ons i s t e d of

i t e m s s uc h a s hi s m a rr i a ge c e rt i f i c a t e , a f f i da vi t s of hi s w i f e a nd7

f r ie n d s , p ic tu r e s o f

D e s o g u s te a n d h is f

a m ily , ale tte rf

r o m h is p a s to r , h is a n d h is w i f e ’ s 2003 t a x r e turn, a nd va r i ous ut i l i tybi l l s . B e c aus e D e s ogus t e c l a i m s tha the w a s ma rr i e d o n D e c e mb e r2 0 , 2 0 0 2 , th e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e th a tth e s e i t e ms w e r e “ n o ta v a i l ab l e a n d c o u l d n o th a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d o rp r e s e n t e d ” a tth e t i me of hi s A pr i l 21, 2003 m ot i on t o r e ope n. I nde e d, D e s ogus t e doe s nota r gue on ap p e a l th a t a n y o f

th e n e w e v id e n c e s u b m itte d w ith h is J u ly2 3 , 2 0 0 4 m o tio n to r e o p e n b e f

o r e th e B I A w a s u n a v a ilab le a t th e tim e o f h is A p r il 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 m o tio n to r e o p e n b e f

o r e th e I J . U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , w e c a n nots a ytha tthe B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on in d e n y in g D e s o g u s te ’s J u ly2 3 , 2 0 0 4 m o tio n to r e o p e n . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 1) ; s e e a l s o I N S v. D ohe rty , 502 U . S . 314, 323, 112 S . C t . 719, 724- 25 ( 1992) ( not i ng tha tm ot i ons t o r e ope n a r e di s f a vor e d i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs b e c au s e “a s ag e n e r a l m a tte r , e v e ryd e la yw o rk s to th e a d v a n ta g e o f th e d e p o rtab le al i en w ho w i shes m er el y t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t at es . ”) I I I . CONCL US I ON F or the abov e r ea sons, w e D IS M IS S D es og ust e’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew i nsofar a s it c h a lle n g e s a n y ru lin g o th e rth a n th e B I A ’s O c to b e r1 8 , 2 0 0 4 d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . I n a d d itio n , w e D E N Y D e s o g u s te ’s p e titio n to th e e x te n t th a t it c ha l l e nge s the B I A ’ s O c t obe r18, 2004 de c i s i on. D I S M I S S E D in p a rt, D E N I E D in p a rt.