10-1963-ag

Persaud v. Holder

BIA

A073 540 452

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 30th 4 day of September, two thousand eleven.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 PETER W. HALL,

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 ______________________________________

12

13 NAITRAM PERSAUD,

14 Petitioner, 

15 10-1963-ag

16 v. NAC 

17

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

19 Respondent.

20 ______________________________________

21

22 FOR PETITIONER: Naitram Persaud, pro se. 23

24 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

25 General; Leslie McKay, Assistant

26 Director; Kelly J. Walls, Trial

27 Attorney, Office of Immigration

28 Litigation, Civil Division, United

29 States Department of Justice,

30 Washington, D.C.

31

32
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

4 is DENIED.

5 Naitram Persaud, a native and citizen of Guyana, seeks

6 review of a May 12, 2010, decision of the BIA denying his

7 motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. In re

8 Persaud, No. A073 540 452 (B.I.A. May 12, 2010). We assume

9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

10 procedural history of the case.

11 As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review

12 Persaud’s arguments with respect to the underlying denial of

13 asylum, because our review is limited to the BIA’s denial of

14 his motion to reopen, as that is the only order from which a

15 timely petition for review was filed. See Ke Zhen Zhao v.

16 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001). 

17 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse

18 of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d

19 Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

20 Persaud’s motion to reopen as untimely. See id. A motion

21 to reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 days

22 after the date on which the final administrative decision

23 was rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. See
3

1 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). There is no dispute that

2 Persaud’s motion to reopen, filed in February 2010, almost

3 fourteen years after the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of his

4 asylum application, was untimely. See id. 

5 A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

6 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to

7 equitably toll the time period for filing Persaud’s motion

8 to reopen because he failed to demonstrate that he exercised

9 due diligence in pursuing reopening based on his claim of

10 ineffective assistance of counsel. See Cekic v. INS, 435

11 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA reasonably found that

12 other than the vague assertion that Persaud “tried to

13 contact” his former counsel, Persaud did not recount any

14 steps he took in pursuing his claim during the nearly

15 fourteen-year period between the BIA’s decision and his

16 motion to reopen, and thus failed to demonstrate that he

17 exercised due diligence in pursuing his claim “during the

18 entire period he . . . [sought] to toll.” Rashid v.

19 Mukasey, 533 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir. 2008). In an affidavit

20 Persaud submitted before this Court, he asserts that his

21 former counsel told him that the BIA had not decided his

22 appeal, and that in mid-2001, he was no longer able to reach

23 his former counsel. Persaud does not mention any steps he
4

1 took to ascertain the status of his appeal to the BIA during

2 the more than eight years after he lost contact with his

3 former counsel, until he discovered, in 2009, that his

4 appeal had been denied. In addition, because Persaud’s

5 affidavit was not submitted to the BIA and is not part of

6 the administrative record, it is of no moment here. See 8

7 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (mandating that “the court of appeals

8 shall decide the petition only on the administrative

9 record”). 

10 B. Discretionary Sua Sponte Reopening

11 In Persaud’s motion to reopen, he requested that the

12 BIA reopen his removal proceedings sua sponte to allow him

13 to pursue cancellation of removal and adjustment of status

14 based on his mother’s approved I-130 Petition. The BIA, in

15 its discretion, may grant reopening outside the time

16 limitations for motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.

17 § 1003.2(a). Although we lack jurisdiction to review the

18 BIA’s discretionary decision not to grant reopening sua

19 sponte, see Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.

20 2006), where the BIA declines to reopen sua sponte based on

21 a misperception of law, we will remand to the BIA, see

22 Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir. 2009). We
5

1 have also explained that the BIA has a “duty to ‘consider

2 the facts of record relevant to the motion’ and provide a

3 ‘rational explanation’ for its ruling.” Sheng Gao Ni v.

4 BIA, 520 F.3d 125, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Melnitsenko

5 v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 42, 50 (2d Cir. 2008)). 

6 Here, the BIA erred in failing to address Persaud’s

7 request for sua sponte reopening to allow him to pursue

8 adjustment of status or cancellation of removal. As the

9 Government argues, however, remand would be futile because

10 Persaud is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of

11 removal and adjustment of status. Adjustment of status is

12 available only if, inter alia, “an immigrant visa is

13 immediately available to [the alien] at the time his

14 application is filed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Because

15 Persaud’s priority date is not current, remand to the BIA

16 for it to consider whether to reopen his deportation

17 proceedings to allow him to apply for adjustment of status

18 would be futile. See Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45, 64

19 (1st Cir. 2006). 

20 Remand for the BIA to consider Persuad’s motion to

21 reopen sua sponte based on his application for cancellation

22 of removal would likewise be futile because he is ineligible

23 for this form of relief. Because Persaud’s proceedings
6

1 commenced (and even concluded) prior to the effective date

2 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

3 Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), the provisions regarding

4 cancellation of removal do not apply to him. See 8 U.S.C.

5 § 1229b(b) (setting forth eligibility requirements for

6 cancellation of removal). Instead, Persaud was required to

7 seek suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1)

8 (repealed in 1996 with the enactment of IIRIRA), but failed

9 to do so. Cf. Arenas-Yepes v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 111, 116-

10 17 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, remand for the BIA to

11 consider in the first instance whether sua sponte reopening

12 is warranted in its discretion would be futile. See Alam v.

13 Gonzales, 438 F.3d 184, 187-188 (2d Cir. 2006) (remand is

14 not required where “there is no realistic possibility that .

15 . . the IJ or BIA would have reached a different

16 conclusion”).

17 C. Pending Motions

18 Persaud moves to supplement his brief with evidence

19 that criminal charges against him were dismissed, which he

20 contends is relevant to his eligibility for cancellation of

21 removal. However, because this evidence is not part of the

22 administrative record and was not submitted to the BIA it
7

1 has no bearing on whether the BIA abused its discretion in

2 denying his motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). 

3 Finally, because we deny Persaud’s petition for review on

4 the merits, we do not reach the Government’s motion to

5 dismiss based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.

6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

14 FOR THE COURT: 

15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 161718