2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
9-7-2005 

# Kani vet s v . Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3569

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" K a nive ts v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 491. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/491P 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 os . 03- 3569, 03- 4187 and 04- 3164

O LEG K A N I V ETS,

Pet i t i oneri n 03- 3569/ 4187

vs. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S , A t t or neyG ener al of t he U ni t ed St at es

R es pondenti n 03- 3569/ 4187

_______________ ON PE TI TI ONS F OR REVI EW FROM ORDERS OF TH E BO AR D O F I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS D A T E D J U L Y 31, 2003 and O C T O B E R 15, 2003

(B IA N o . A 7 7 -55 4 -28 3 )

____________
OLEG KA NI VETS A ppel l ee i n 04- 3164 vs. B I L L R I L E Y , as R egi onal D i r ect orI m m i gr at i on and C u s to m s E n f

o rc e m e n t D e p a rt m e n t o f H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty, o r h is s u c c e s s o r o r A s s ig n s ; J O H N A S H C R O F T , A t t or neyG ener al of t he U ni t ed St at es A ppel l anti n 04- 3164

____________I N I T I A L L Y D O C K E T E D A S A N A P P E A L F R O M THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT CO UR T F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA P RI OR T O T HE E NAC T M E NT OF T HE RE AL I D AC T OF 2006 ( D
. C

. N o. 03- cv- 05377) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a rv in K a tz

____________ A r gued J ul y15, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , M cK E E and W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

___________ Fi l ed: Sept ember 7, 2005

____________ L a wr e n c e H. Ru d n i c k , E s q u i r e ( AR GUE D) St eel , R udni ck & R uben 1608 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1500 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A tto rn e yf

o r A p p e llee O leg K a n iv e ts

Gr e g D. M a c k , E s q u i r e ( AR GUE D) O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on C i vi l D i vi s i on U
. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce P. O

. B ox 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044- 0878 A t t or neyforA ppel l antB i l l R i l ey , as R egi onal D i r ect or I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cementD epart m entof H o m e lan d S e c u rity , o r H is S u c c e ss o r o r A ss ig n s; J o h n A sh c ro f t, A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es

_______________ OP I NI ONW E I S, C i r cui tJ udge. I n t hi s c a s e th e B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s deni ed a t i m el yfi l ed motion forr ehea r i ng on t he gr ound t hati tw as not deci ded unt i l aft ert he per i od forvol unt arydepartur e had e l aps ed. W e conc l ude thatt he t i m e al l ot t ed fordepartur e i s t ol l ed pendi ng a rul i ng on t he mot i on and ac cor di ngl ygr antthe p et i t i on for r e v i e w. O l eg K ani vet s i s a R us s i an J ew w ho i s a ci t i zen of K yr gy zs t an. H e ent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es on J anuary21, 1998 and w as author i zed t o s t ay unt i l J anuary 20, 1999. H e fi l ed foras y l um o n A u g u s t 2 , 1 9 9 9

.

K a n iv e ts c o n te n d s th a t h e su f f e re d p e rse c u tio n in K yrg y z sta n b a se d o n h is re lig io n . H e d e sc rib e s a p a ttern o f th re a ts and as s aul t s t hat w er e i gnor ed byt he l ocal pol i ce. I n A pr i l 1997, K a n iv e ts w a s a ss a u lted b yf o u r K yrg y z m e n w h o u ttere d a n e th n ic s l u ra n d t h r e a t e n e d t o k i l l h i m i f h e d i d n o t l e a v e t h e c o u n t r y . He r epor t ed t he as s aul t t o t he pol i ce, but t hey t ol d hi m t hati tw as t oo m i noran i nci dentt o i nves t i gat e and a dvi s ed hi m t o l eave forI s r ael if h e w a s d is s a tis f

ie d

. K ani vet s al l eged thatthe s ame fourm en as s aul t ed h im se v e ra l m o n th s la ter a n d q u e stio n e d w h yh e h a d n o t g o n e to Is rael

. H e suffered a co ncu ssi on and w as hospit al i zed f or 20 d ay s. Fol l ow i ng t hatas s aul t , Kan i v e t s r e c e i v e d s e v e r a l th r eat eni ng phone cal l s fr om uni dent i fi ed cal l er s . H i s m ot herhad pr evi ous l yr ece i ved t hr eat eni ng not es aft er hi s s i s t er m oved t o I s r ael i n February1997.

K an ivets testi fied that h is sup erv isor an d co -w o rke rs a t t h e d e n t a l c l i n i c wh e r e h e wo r k e d h a r a s s e d a n d t h r e a t e n e d h i m. D i s char g ed in M ay1997, he al l eged thathe w as deni ed fur t her em p loy m en t i n K yrgy zstan
. K an ivets ass erte d that h is fam il y ’s apart m ent w as ransacked aft er he depart ed for t he U n ited S t at es. H i s m other report ed the i ncident t o the poli ce, bu t t hey fai l ed to in v e s tig a te it. S h e e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s in A p ri l 1 9 9 9

.

T he I J deni ed K ani vet s ’ appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i t hhol di ng o f rem oval , butgr ant ed a s i xt y - dayper i od for vol unt arydepartur e. H ol di ng t hatt he appl i cat i on foras y l um w as u n tim e ly , th e I J ’ s d e c isio n e m p h a siz e d th e lac k o f e v id e n c e to b o lste r K a n iv e ts’ c laim o f p e rse c u tio n . B a se d o n th is w e a k n e ss in th e p e tit io n e r’s c a se , th e IJ d e ter m in e d th a t K a n iv e ts h a d f a iled to es t abl i s h ( 1) t hathe qual i fi ed as a r efuge e, ( 2) t hat he w as ent i t l edto w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l an d (3 ) th a t h e f a c e d a c lea r p ro b a b ili ty o f to rt u re if

h e re tu rn e d to K yrg y z s ta n . A c c o rd in g to th e IJ, “ [ t]h e o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e in th is cas e fa i l s t o s how t hatJ ew i sh peopl e i n K yr gy zs t an s uffe r p e r s e c u t i o n e i t h e ra tt h e h a n d s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n to f t h a tc o u n t r y, orbygr oups t hatt he governm entof t hatcount ry is u nabl e or unw i l l i ng t o contr ol

. ” H e noted that J ew s have be en emi gr at i ng f ro m K yrg yz s tan in ste a d yn u m b e rs, b u t attrib u ted th is to
“ a n i m o s i t yo f

t h e K yr g y z a g a i n s tt h e R u s s i a n - s p e a k i n g c o m m u n i ty, w hi ch i ncl udes m os tJ ew s . ”

In c o n tra st t o th e lac k o f o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e o f

a n tiS e m iti sm , the IJ n o ted th a t:

“C l ear l y , t her e had been i ns t ance s of soci et al viol ence aga in st t ho se per cei ved as bei ng “R us s i an” byt he nat i ves of K yr gy zs t an. . . . T he pr obl em of R us s i ans w ho r emai n i n t he form er S o v ie t r e p u b lic s is w e ll- k n o w n . . . . [K ani vets] w entfr om bei ng par tof a favor ed mi nor i tyt hatcontrol l ed the c o u n try , n a m e ly, th e R u ss ian s, to bei ng par tof a des pi s ed mi nor i t y . T he l ong pent
- up r es ent m ent of t he nat i ves of K yr gy zs t an has t aken i t s t ol l i n t he countr y . B utt her e i s no obj ect i ve bas i s for t he r es pondent ’ s subj ect i ve cl ai m t hathe has been the vi ct i m of per s ecut i on i n K yr gy zs t an bec aus e of h is J e w ish e th n icity . T h e p ro b lem , if any , ar os e f

r om t he fa ctt hathe w as per cei ved t o be p art of t he form er R u ssian m asters..
. A rgu ab ly , t he re sp o n d e n t m a y h a v e b e e n th e v ictim of s o c i e t a l v i o l e n c e b a s e d u p o n t he per cept i on t hath e w as a mem berof t he R us s i an- s peaki ng m i nor i t y . . . ”

T h e IJ c o n clud ed that “the re is insu ff ici en t ev iden ce in this reco rd t o s how t hatt he gover nm ent of K yr gy zs t an condone s ori ns t i gat es1. T he H om el and Secur i t yA ctof 2002, Pub. L
. N o. 107- 296, 116 S tat. 2 1 3 5 (2 0 0 2 ) e lim in a ted th e IN S a n d tra n sf e rre d its en fo rce m en t fu n cti o n s to the D ep artm en t of H o m elan d S ec u ri ty ’s B u re a u o f

Im m ig ra tio n a n d C u sto m s E n f o rc e m e n t. per s ecut i on of t hos e per cei ved t o be R us s i ans . ”

T he I J det er m i ned t h at K ani vet s w as r emovabl e as char ged, deni ed the appl i cat i on for as y l um and gr ant ed a s i xt y - day per i od for vol unt ary departur e. T he B I A aff i r m ed on O ct ober28, 2 0 0 2 an d p rov ided an ad d it ion al t h irty -da yp eriod fo r vo lun tary departur e. O n N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , K a n iv e ts f ile d tim e ly m ot i ons t o r eopen the or derof r emoval , for a st ay of r emoval , and a r emand foradj us t m entof s t atus bas ed on hi s ali en w or ker c e r t i f i c a t i o n a n d h i s e mp l o y e r ’ s p e n d i n g i mm i g r a t i o n p e t i t i o n . He a ls o a s k e d f

o r a re in s ta te m e n t o f

v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . T he B I A deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen on J ul y31, 2003, r eas oni ng t hatpet i t i onerw as sta tut or i l yi nel i gi bl e for ad justm en t of

statu s b ec au se h e h ad fa il ed to d ep art th e c o u n try befor e hi s per i od forvol unt arydepartur e had expi r ed. O n O ct ober 15, 2003, t he B o ard deni ed the pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. K ani vet s pet i t i oned forr evi ew i n ourC our ton A u g u s t 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 a n d O c to b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 3

.

I n t he i nt er i m , on Sept ember 24, 2003, K ani vet s fi l ed a pet i t i on forhabea s corpus i n t he U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. T hatcour tgr ant ed r el i ef a nd t he g o v e rn m e n t a p p e a le d

.

T he governm ent( T he D epa rt m entof H om el and Secur i ty ) a p p e al s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng habea s corpus

1 r el i ef a nd r emandi ng t he ca s e t o t he B I A beca us e of as s er t ed l egal err or s i n t he pr ocee di ng.

T h e g o v ern m en t arg u e s (1 ) t h at t h e D istri ct C o u rt erred in w eigh ing the su ff ici en cy o f the e v iden ce , (2) tha t th e IJ’s ru lin g th a t th e a p p lica tio n f o r a s ylu m w a s u n tim e lyis unr evi ew abl e, and ( 3) t hatt he deni al of asy l um w as notw i t hi n t he ju risd ictio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. D ur i ng ourcons i der at ion of t he tw o pet i t i ons for2. Ka n i v e t s wa s d e e me d r e mo v a b l e u n d e r8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) as an al i en pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of l aw , and t he I J deni ed hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval under8 U

. S. C

. § 1231( b) ( 3)

. T he exc ept i ons found i n 8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( e) r el at e t o or der s under8 U

. S. C

. § 1225( b) ( 1) and a re th u s in a p p lic a b le h e re . r evi ew w e l earned t hat T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yhad appea l ed t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s habea s corpus or der

. W e then c o n s o lid a te d a ll th re e m a tte rs a n d h e ld o ra l a rg u m e n t.

A ft ert hes e appe al s w er e t aken, C ongr es s enac t ed the “R eal I D A ct ” am endi ng 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252, Pub. L
. N o. 109- 13, 119 St at
. 2331 (20 05) s i gned i nt o l aw M ay11, 2005 and ef fec t i ve on th a t d a te . T h e R e a l I D A c t, in tera lia , s hi ft ed ce r t ai n i m m i gr at i on d isp u tes f

o rm e rlyra ise d th ro u g h h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e d istric t co u rts t o t he court s of appe al s and conve r t ed them i nt o pet i t i ons for r evi ew . Subse ct i on ( a) ( 5) pr ovi des t hat“a pe t i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed w i t h an appr opr i at e cour t of appea l s i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s s ect i on s hal l be the s ol e and e xcl us i ve means for j udi ci al r evi ew of an or der o f re m o v al en tered o r i ssu ed u n d er a n yp rov isi o n o f th is ch ap ter, e x c e p t a s p ro v id e d in s u b s e c tio n (e ) o f th is s e c tio n .” 2 I n t he ca s e bef

or e us , t he pet i t i on for ha beas corpus w as fi l ed ata t i m e w hen t he D i s t r i ct C our t had j ur i s di ct i on overt he m at t er . B eca us e i tbeca m e ef fec t i ve on the dat e of enac t m ent , t he R eal ID A ctapp l i es to t his app eal

. S ee P apag eorgi ou v. G on zal es,

_ _ _ F. 3d ___, N o. 04- 3135, 2005 W L 1490454 ( 3d C i r . J une 24, 2005)

. I n B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , ___ F. 3d ___ , N o . 04- 2037, 20 0 5 W L 1653641, at*2 ( 3d C i r . J ul y15, 2005) , w e not ed that undert he R eal I D A ct , ca ses p en di ng i n t he di s t r i ctcour t s on t he dat e of e nactm ent w er e t o be conver t ed t o pet i t i ons forr evi ew and tr a n s f e rr e d to th e c o u rt s o f

a p p e a ls

. T he R eal I D A ct , how ever , i s s i l entas t o habea s co rpu s p e ti ti o n s tha t w ere o n ap p ea l atthe tim e o f e n ac tm en t. In re so lv in g th a t p ro c e d u ra l g a p , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t su c h a p p e a ls sh o u ld b e c o n v e rte d to p e tit io n s f o r re v iew a n d re tain e d b yth is C our t
. See i d. at *2; s ee al s o K amar a v. D epart m ent of H om el and Secur i t y , N o. 04- 2647 ( A ugus t18, 20 0 5 ). T her efor e, t he curr ent p ro c e e d in g c o n s is ts o f

th re e p e titio n s f

o r r e v ie w .3. 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (d ) p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t:
A nydepartur e fr om t he U ni t ed St at es , i ncl udi ng t he deport at i on

O ne i s s ue thati s pot ent i al l ydi s pos i t i ve i s p resent ed b ytw o o f th e p eti ti o n s, tho se o ri g inallyco m p lai n ing o f th e B IA ’s fai l ur e t o rule on pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tforr eopeni ng and the c o n se q u e n t f

a ilu re to ru le o n th e m e rits o f h is a lien w o rk e r p e rm it a s a b a s is f

o r a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . A ft ert he B I A ’ s or i gi nal rul i ng, K ani vet s h ad a s ta tu to r y r ig h t to re q u e s t a re o p e n in g o f h is c a s e . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1229 a(c )(7); s ee a l s o 8 C

. F. R
. § 1003. 2( c)

. H e di d s o on N ovember 22, 2002, w i t hi n t he t hi r t y - dayper i od t hatt he B I A had al l ot t ed fort he pr i vi l ege of vol unt arydepartur e. In hi s pet i t i on, K an ivets ci t ed the fa ctt hathi s empl oy erhad fi l ed a pe ndi ng im m ig ra n t p e titio n f

o r a lie n w o rk e r w ith th e IN S

. I n deny i ng t he pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng, t he B I A w r ot e, “[w ] e fi nd t hatt he r es pondentis statut or i l yi nel i gi bl e t o appl yfor a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s a t th e p re se n t tim e a s a re su lt o f h is f a ilu re to departt he U ni t ed St at es pr i ort o t he expir ati o n of hi s per i od of vol unt arydepartur e. ” The B I A ci t ed 8 U

. S. C

. § 1 2 29c( d) and M a tte r o f S h a a r, 2 1 I. & N
. D e c . 5 4 1 ( B I A 1 9 9 6 ), a ff’d 141 F. 3d 9 5 3 (9 C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ).

th I n M at t er of Shaar , t he B I A deci ded t hatt he fi l i ng of a mot i on forr eopeni ng dur i ng t he per i od of vol unt arydepartur e w as n o t an “ ex ce p ti o n al c ir cu m stan ce ” tha t al low s g ran t of d iscreti o n ary r el i ef. I n deny i ng K ani vet s pet i t i on forr econs i der at i on her e, t he B I A el abor at ed, “.

. . an al i en w ho fai l s t o departfol l ow i ng a gr ant of vol unt arydepartur e, and w ho has been i nfor m ed of the pena l t i es i n s ect i on 240B ( d)

. . . i s i nel i gi bl e for a per i od of 10 y ears for cert ai n for m s of d is cr et i onaryr el i ef, i ncl udi ng adj us t m entof s t atus . ” U nder t he B I A rul i ng, t he r es ul t i s t hatan al i en w ho does notl eave t he U ni t ed St at es w i t hi n t he t i m e s peci fi ed i n t he grant of vo l un t ary dep arture i s not ent i t l ed to adj ust m ent of st atus. O n t he otherhand, i f t he al i en l eave s t he countr y w i t hi n t he per i od al l ow ed forvol unt arydepartur e, he for fei ts hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. 8 C

. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 (d). 3orr emoval of a pe r s on w ho i s t he s ubj ectof exc l us i on, depor t at i on, orr emoval pr ocee di ngs , occurr i ng aft ert he fi l i ng of a mot i on t o r eopen ora mot i on t o r econs i der , s hal l cons t i tut e a w i t hdr aw al of s uch mot i on. 4. A num berof exc ept i ons notr el evantt o t hi s di s cus s i on ar e l i s t ed in th e s ta tu te
.

T hus , t he st atut or y and r egul at or ypr ovi s i ons pr oduce a s i gni fi cantconundrum . B ys t atut e, an al i en i s ent i t l ed t o fi l e one m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs w i t hi n 90 day s of t he entr yof an o r d e ro f r e mo v a l

. 8 U. C. S

. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( A) , ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C) ( i )

. An 4 al i e n ma y t i me l y f

i l e a p e t i t i o n f

o r r e o p e n i n g , b u t i f t h e BI A does notdeci de the pet i t i on w i t hi n t he per i od for vol unt arydepartur e, t he a lie n lo s e s th e ri g h t to h a v e a ru lin g .

Th i s “ Ca t c h

- 2 2 " s i t u a t i o n wa s d i s c u s s e d a ts o me l ength i n A zart e v. A s hcr oft , 394 F. 3d 1278 ( 9 C i r . 2005)

. A ft er th a r evi ew of t he s t atut or yand r egul at or ypr ovi s i ons , the C o u r tof A ppeal s obs er ved thati n M at t erof Shaar , 21 I

. & N
. D ec. 541, t he B IA h eld th at t h e p rac ti ce o f e x tend ing the tim e f o r vo lun tary departur es w as t er m i nat ed by enac t m ent of a s t atut e thatr es t r i ct ed s uch ext ens i ons . 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229a( c) ( 7)

. See A zart e, 394 F. 3d at 1 2 8 6

. B efor e ena ct m ent of t he s t atut e, t he pr act i ce ha d been t o ext end vol unt arydepartur e fr eel y so that t he B I A w oul d have t i m e t o rul e on r eopeni ng befor e t he al i en w oul d have be en r equi r ed t o depart
. See i d. at1286- 87. M o reo v er, the per i od al l ow ed for vol unt arydepartur e had been m or e gener ous t han t hat s et outi n t he s t atut e. See i d. at1287.

T he A zart e C our topi ned thati tw as abs ur d t o bel i eve th a t C o n g re ss , in p ro v id in g f o r p e tit io n s to re o p e n , w o u ld in ten d to p rec lud e the irad

jud icati o n b y inv o ca ti o n o f th e v o lun taryd ep arture li m itatio n . S e e id . at 1 2 8 8 -8 9 . A c c o rd in g ly , the C o u rt h e ld th a t a t i m el ypet i t i on forr eopeni ng i n conj unct i on w i t h a re ques t fors t ay o f re m o v al or v o lun taryd ep arture to ll s the p eriod o f v o lu n tary departur e dur i ng t he t i m e dur i ng w hi ch the B I A cons i der s t he m o tio n . S e e id . a t 1 2 8 9

.

T h e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e T e n th C irc u it i nSi di khouy a v. G onzal es , 407 F. 3d 950 ( 10 C i r . 2005) , al s o r ej ect ed th th e B IA ’s S h a a r a p p ro a c h . T h a t C o u rt h e ld in a g re e m e n t w ith A zar te th at a n al i en mustbe af for ded an opportuni t yt o r ece i ve a ru lin g o n th e m e ri ts o f

a tim e ly f

ile d p e titio n to re o p e n . W e h a d th e o c c a sio n to c o n f ro n t a s im ilar p ro b lem in B arr i os v. A t t or neyG ener al of t he U ni t ed St at es , 399 F. 3d 272 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. I n t hat cas e, t he B I A deni ed a t i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen beca us e the per i od forvol unt arydepartur e had e l aps ed befo re t he m ot i on w as adj udi cat ed on the mer i t s . See B arr i os , 399 F. 3d at 273- 74. B arr i os i nvol ved 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252b( e) ( 2) ( A ) ( r ep eal ed 1 9 9 6 ), t h e p re d e c e s s o r t o s e c tio n 2 4 0 B ( d ) o f th e IN A , 8 U .S .C . § 1229c( d) , s o i ti s notpr eci s el yt he t extbefor e us att he pr es entt i m e. S e e id . at 2 7 4 -7 5 . In B a rrio s, a s in M a tter o f S h a a r, th e a p p lica b le st atute pr ov i ded t hat i n the absence o f “ex cepti on al ci rcum st ances” a n a lien w h o o v e rsta y s h is v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re d a te w a s n o t elig ib le f o r d is c re tio n a ry re lie f

f o r a p e ri o d o f

f iv e y e a rs . B arr i os r ej ect ed the r eas oni ng of M at t erof Shaarand hel d t hat“the fa i l ur e of i m m i gr at i on author it ies t o acton a legiti m ate a p p li ca ti o n fo r reli ef fil ed w ith in th e v o lun taryd ep arture p e r i o d [ w a s ] a n e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e . . . . ” I d

. a t2 7 7
. We deci ded thatt he dayt hatt he mot i on w as fi led w as t he cr i t i cal begi nni ng poi nt , r athert han the dat e of a dj udi cat i on. See i d. B arr i os al s o comm ent ed fa vor abl yon t he A zart e r eas oni ng, al t hough t hatcas e addr es s ed the curr ents t atut e, w hi ch does not s peak of “exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” In B h iski v. A sh cr o f

t, 3 7 3 F
. 3 d 3 6 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ), w e c i t e d M a t t e r o f Sh a a r i n a c a s e whe r e t h e a l i e n a s k e d for an a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s. T h a t c a se , h o w e v e r, is c lea rlyd istin g u ish a b le b ec au se th e m o ti o n to rem an d w as f il ed af ter th e p eriod o f v o lun tary d e p a rt u re h a d e x p ir e d . S e e B h is k i, 3 7 3 F .3 d a t 3 6 6

.

R ey n o so -L o p ez v . A sh c rof t, 3 6 9 F
. 3 d 2 7 5 (3d C ir

. 2004) i s al s o di s t i ngui s habl e. T her e, t he i s s ue w as w hetherw e had author i t yt o r ei ns t at e a gr ant of vol unt ary departur e and ext end the d e p a rt u re d a te . S e e R e yn o s o -L o p e z , 3 6 9 F
. 3 d a t 2 7 7 . W e co n clud ed that the C o u rt h ad n o juri sd ict ion to i ssu e suc h an o rde r. S ee id. T h at i s a d iffe ren t situ ati o n fro m that p rese n ted h ere w h ere w e h o ld th at toll ing ap p li es du ri n g the pe ri o d o f ti m e tha t th e B IA d e lib e ra te s o n a tim e ly m o tio n to re o p e n .

B eca us e a f

avor abl e di s pos i t i on of K ani vet s ’ m ot i onm ay resu lti n hi s bei ng gr ant ed a vi s a, w e nee d notrul e on the m er i t s of t he appe al fr om t he gr ant o f h abeas corpus . A tor al arg u m en t, co u n sel fo r t h e p eti ti o n er c o n ce d ed thati f r eop en ing w ere gr ant ed the h ab eas c orpus cl ai m w oul d be moot

. C ouns el fort he governm ents t at ed thati ti s qui t e pos s i bl e th ata vi s a maybe avai l abl e for K ani vet s att hi s t i m e. G i ven the s t r ong pos s i bi l i t yt hat K a n iv e ts w ill p re v a il o n h is a p p lica tio n f o r re o p e n in g , itis lik e ly th a t th e su b sta n ti v e c laim s u n d e rly in g h is h a b e a s p e tit io n w ill b e c o m e m o o t.

A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d e n y th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew in C as e N o. 04- 3164 ( for m er l yt he habe as pet i t i on) w i t houtpr ej udi ce as m oot
. See N at i onw i de M ut
. I ns . C o. v. B ur ke, 897 F. 2d 734, 740 ( 4 C i r . 1990) ( di s t r i ctcourtcoul d di s m i s s cas e w i t houtpr ej udi ce th as m oot , butbas ed on the out come of a r el at ed s t at e court a ct i on, pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m m i ghtno l ongerbe moot and i tcoul d fi l e a ne w ca se). I f th e m o ti o n fo r reo p en ing is gran ted o n rem an d , the B IA coul d al s o r e- exami ne w hethert he I J ( 1) i m pr oper l yr ej ect ed K ani vet s ’ cl ai m s for l ack of s uffi ci ent corr obor at i on and (2) r ai s ed, and then r ej ect ed, t he pos s i bi l i t yt hatK ani vet s ’ had a w el l

- founded fea rof per s ecut i on bas ed on hi s R us s i an ethni ci t y , ora combi nat i on o f n a tio n a lity a n d re lig io n .

A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld th a t b e c a u se K a n iv e ts tim e ly fi l ed hi s pet i t i on forr eopeni ng, t he B I A s houl d deci de hi s m ot i on for r eop ening on t he m eri t s.

T he pet i t i ons forr evi ew i n cas es docket ed at03- 3569 and 03- 4187 w i l l be gra nt ed. T he pet i t i on for r evi ew at docket04- 3 1 6 4 w ill b e d e n ie d a s m o o t w ith o u t p re ju d ic e .