A PS-297 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 . 05- 2803

________________ RA JKUMAR S HAR M A, Pet i t i oner v. AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 72 432 452)

_______________________________________ S u b m itte dF o r P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 Jul y8, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , N Y G A A R D , * and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: Jul y20, 2005)

* H onor abl e R i char d L . N y gaar d as s um ed s eni ors t atus on Jul y9, 2005.2 _______________________ OP INI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM R aj K um arSharm a pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) w hi ch deni ed hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on as unt i m el y . T he Go v e rn me n th a s f

i l e damo t i o n f

o rs u mm a rya f

f i rman c e . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l g r a n tth e Go v e rn me n t ’ s mo t i o n a n dwi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. Sharm a i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thout i ns pect i on i n 1991. H e s ubm i tt ed an a ffi rm at i ve as y l um pet i t i on, and w as i s s ued a not i ce to ap p e a r i n S e p te m b e r 1 9 9 8 . A n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (I J ) d e n ie dre lie f o n Ju ly 6 , 1 9 9 9 . T he B I A deni ed hi s appea l on A ugus t20, 2002. Sharm a fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen on M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , arg u in g th a t h e w a s d e n ied du e p ro c e ss b e c a u se h e d idn o t re c e iv e af u ll and compl et e tr ans l at i on of hi s pr ocee di ng befor e the I J . T he B I A deni ed the mot i on as u n tim e ly. T h is c o u rt’s r e v iew e x ten d s o n lyto th e B IA ’s o rd e r d e n y in g S h a rm a ’s m o tio n to r eopen orr econs i der . See St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386, 405 ( 1995) ; N ocon v. I N S, 789 F. 2d 1028, 1033- 34 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . T he dec i s i on t o denya mot i on t o r eopen i s w i thi n the B o ard ’s discre ti o n . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (a); L u v . A sh cro ft, 2 5 9 F . 3 d1 2 7 , 1 3 1 (3d C ir . 2001) . U nderthe r egul at i ons , the B oar d “has di s cr et i on t o denya mot i on t o r eopen e venSharm a’ s m ot i on i nexpl i cabl yas ks thi s C ourtt o “r econs i deri t s pr i ordeci s i on t o deny 1 P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to sta yh is re m o v a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate s.” W e a re n o t ab le to lo c a te a n yp rio r ap p e a l o r m o tio n b yS h a rm ain th is C o u rt. T h e tra n sc rip t re f

lec ts th a t th e IJ in f

o rm e dS h a rm a ’s a tto rn e yo f th e tim e to ap p e a l, 2 a n dth e r e c o r ds h o ws th a tS h a rmad i d , i n f a c t , f i l e at i me l yap p e a l t o th e BI A. 3 if th e p artym o v ing h as m ad e o u t a prim a f ac ie ca se f

o r reli ef. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (a). A m o tio n to re c o n s id e r m u s t b e f ile dw ith in 3 0 d a y s o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (b)(2 ). U n less ce rt ain e x ce p ti o n s ap p ly , su ch as c h an g ed co u n try condi t i ons , a mot i on t o r eopen be for e the B oar d m us tbe fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of the fi nal o rd e r. 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(2 ). W h e th e r S h a rm a ’s m o tio n w a s c o n stru e da s a m o tio n to re c o n s id e r o r a m o tio n to re o p e n , it w a s f ile do v e r tw o y e a rs la te . S h a rm a ’s s tay m o tio n a rg u e s th a t h e w a s d e p riv e do f du e p ro c e ss b e c a u se h e d id 1 notr ece i ve a pr operand compl et e tr ans l at i on of the pr ocee di ngs and bec aus e the I Jfai l ed t o advi s e hi m of hi s r i ghtt o appea l t o the B I A . H i s s t aym ot i on does notaddr es s the fa ct 2 th a t h is m o tio n b e f

o re th e B IA w a s u n tim e ly. A f te r th e G o v e rn m e n t f

ile dits m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry a f

f irm a n c e , S h a rm are s p o n d e d . A l tho ug h h i s ar gu m ents are s om ew hat uncl ear, the respon se appe ars t o argue that because the B I A has the author i tyt o s ua s pont e r eopen orr econs i deranydeci s i on i thas m ade w i thoutr egar d t o t i m e r es tr ai nt s , and bec aus e the B I A s om et i m es r eopens a pr ocee di ng w h e re th e re h a s b e e n ag ro s s m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e , th is C o u rtm a ys till r e v ie w h is c la im s . Sharm a conc edes thatm anycourt s have he l d thattheym aynotr evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on to d e c lin e to re o p e n o r re c o n sid e r a c a se su asp o n te, b u t h e d o e s n o t re c o g n ize in h isSharm a’ s m ot i on fora s t ayof r emoval i s deni ed. 3 4 r es pons e thatthi s C ourti s one of thos e w hi ch have s o hel d. See C al l e- V uj i l es v. A s hcr oft , 320 F. 3d 472, 474- 75 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “[b] ecaus e the B I A r et ai ns unfett er ed d isc re tio n to d e c lin e to su asp o n te r e o p e n o r re c o n sid e r a d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g , this c o u rt is w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to re v iew ad e c isio n d e c lin in g to e x e rc ise su c h d isc re tio n to reo p en o r reco n side r th e c ase . ”). W e nee d notr eac h the i s s ue of w hetherthi s C ourtcoul d r eac h the mer i t s of S h a rm a ’s c a se if

it fo u n dag ro ss m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e , as S h a rm ah a s n o t sh o w n th a t a g ross m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce o cc u rredin h is case . A s S h arm a h as n o t sho w n that the B IA abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on, hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed. 3