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 6-15-2005 

# V e rb eju s v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1756

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . 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 and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V e r bejus v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1013. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1013Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has be en substituted for for mer Attorney

General * J ohn Ashcrof

t, the orig inal respondent in this case , pursuant to Fe d. R. App. P. 43(c). 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. 04- 1756

__________ V Y TA S V ER BE J U S,

Pet i t i oner vs. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, * A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R e sp o n d e n t.

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof R emoval f ro m th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce E xecut i ve O ffi ce f

orI m m i gr at i on R evi ew ( B I A N o. A 79- 762- 271)

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ay27, 2005

___________ B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A L I T O and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 15, 2005)

__________ OP I NI ON

__________-2-

G ar t h, C i r cui tJ udge: W riting , as w e d o , o n lyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e re c ite o n lyth o se f a c ts es s ent i al t o deci de thi s appea l . V yt as V erbej us , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of L i t huani a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) deni al of hi s m ot i on t o recon si der hi s depo rt at i on case. In so doing, V erbej us al so chall eng es several aspect s, bot h pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve, of the under l y i ng depor t at i on or der , cent er i ng on t he behavi orof the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) dur i ng hi s depor t at i on pr ocee di ng. W e ar e thus cal l ed upon t o r evi ew t he fi nal or derof deport at i on, as w el l as t he or derdeny i ng t he m oti on t o recon si der. T hese orders ar e i nd epen den t l yrevi ew able fi nal or ders. A ccor di ng t o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) , a pet i t i on forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval

“ m u st b e f

iled n o t late r th a n 3 0 d a y s a f ter th e d a te o f

th e f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l.” T h is t i m e peri od i s “j uri sdi ct i on al i n n ature and m ustbe co nst rued w i t h st ri ctfi deli t yt o [it s] t erm s . ” S t o n e v . I

NS , 514 U . S. 386, 405 ( 1995) . M or eover , t he fi l i ng of a s ubs equent m ot i on t o r econs i dera fi nal or derof deport at i on does nott ol l t he 30- dayper i od for s eeki ng r evi ew of the under l y i ng or derand does notr endert he under l y i ng or der n o n -f in a l. I d. ; s e e a l s o No c o n v . I

NS , 789 F. 2d 1028, 1032- 33 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( nei t her fi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen norm ot i on t o r econs i ders us pends t he t i m e forfi l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew of the under l y i ng or der ) . H er e, t he B I A i s s ued the fi nal or derof r emoval on O ct ober7, 2003, butV erbej us di d notpet i t i on forr evi ew of thi s deci s i on unt i l M ar ch 19, 2004. H e thus fai l ed t o fi l e a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s or deraff i r m i ng t he-3-

I J ’ s deci s i on. R ather , he pet i t i oned forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s M ar ch 1, 2004 deci s i on deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r econs i der . A s not ed, t he fi l i ng of a mot i on t o r econs i derdoes not to ll th e 3 0 -d a ylim ita tio n s p e ri o d . S e e id . W e thu s lack juri sd ict ion to rea ch V erb ejus ’s chal l enges t o t he under l y i ng depor t at i on or derdeny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef f r om re m o v a l. W e neve r t hel es s fee l compel l ed t o m ake know n ourdi s appr oval of the I J ’ s conduct her e, conductw hi ch w as adver s ar i al , hum i l i at i ng and hos t i l e. W hi l e w e appr eci at e the di ffi cul t i es fac ed byi m m i gr at i on j udges i n as y l um cas es , and w hi l e w e ar e s at i s fi ed that t he p et i t i on er’ s r i gh t s w ere notviol at ed in this case, w e rem ai n m i nd ful that there i s a pr oper , pr i nci pl ed, and pr ofes s i onal w ayt o conducti m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . A l t hough i m m i gr at i on j udges have, as one of thei rpr i m aryfunct i ons , t he det erm i nat i on of cr edi bi l i t y , i m m i gr at i on j udges w oul d be w el l - advi s ed, i n futur e ca s es , t o avoi d even the ap p ea ran ce o f p rejud g m en t of the c red ibil ityo f w itn esse s an d the v ali d ityo f a p eti ti o n er’s cl ai m s.W e a re lef

t to d e ter m in e o n lyw h e th e r th e B IA e rre d b yd e n y in g th e m o tio n to re c o n s id e r. D e n ia ls o f

m o tio n s f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n a re re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (a); N o c o n , 789 F. 2d at1033 ( r evi ew i ng t he B I A ’ s deni al of a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e rf

o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . ) . A m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r , g o v e r n e d b y 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 1) , r equi r es an appl i cantt o “s peci fy [] t he err or s of fa ctorl aw i n t he pr i orB oar d deci s i on and s hal l be s uppor t ed byper t i nentauthor i t y . ” The B I A her e found-4-

t hatV erbej us , i n hi s m ot i on t o r econs i der , m er el yr ei t er at ed the s ame ar gum ent s t o t he d e n ial o f h is a p p lica tio n s f

o r re lief f ro m re m o v a l, th e re b yf

a ili n g to sta te a n ysp e c if ic l egal orfac tual err or s i n t he B I A ’ s O ct ober7, 2003 deci s i on. L i kew i s e, V erbej us a d v a n c e s n o a rg u m e n t b e f o re u s w h ich w o u ld w a rra n t o v e rtu rn in g th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f h is m ot i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatt he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he m o tio n to re c o n s id e r. W e w i l l D E N Y t he Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on.