2007 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 12-12-2007 

# S h ah z a d 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 : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-2495

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_2007

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 2007 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 " S h ahza d v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 90. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/90NOT 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. 06- 2495

__________ AS I M S HAHZ AD,

P et i t i oner , vs. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent .

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of O r derof t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 73- 631- 918 Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

___________ Subm i t t ed on N ovember 28, 2007

___________ B e f o re : B A R R Y , F U E N T E S a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges , ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber12, 2007)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : 

### Asim Sh ahza d (“Shahzad”) pet i t i ons t hi s C our tforr evi ew of t he B oar d ofA ccor di ng t o t he V i s a B ul l et i n forA ugus t2005, vi s as w er e i s s ued t o unm arr i ed s ons 1 a n d d a u g h t e r s o f p e r ma n e n t r e s i d e n t s wi t h p e t i t i o n d a t e s b e f o r e J a n u a r y 2 2 , 1 9 9 6 . For unm arr i ed s ons and daught er s of U . S. ci t i zens , t he appl i cabl e dat e w as A pr i l 8, 2001. A dm i n. R ec. ( “A - R ”) at29. -2- I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) or derof M ar ch 28, 2006, aff i r m i ng and adopt i ng t he Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) d e c isio n , w h ich d e n ied S h a h z a d ’s m o tio n to re o p e n to a p p ly f o ra d j u s t m e n to f

s t a tu s o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a ti tw a s u n t i m e l y. W e f ind that the B IA an d IJ did n o t abu se th eir discreti o n in d en y ing S h ah za d ’s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n a n d t h e r e f o r e d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.

I . F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY A nat i ve and c i t i zen of

Paki s t an and born N ovember 16, 1967, Shahzad e nt er ed the U n ite d S ta te s o n A p ri l 2 8 , 1 9 9 6 o n a B -2 s ix -m o n th v is a a n d d id n o t d e p a rt a s re q u ir e d . H i s par ent s , M us ht aq A hm ed and N i az Begum , fi l ed s epar at e pet i t i ons ( For m s I - 130) on h is b e h a lf

o n Ja n u a ry2 8 , 1 9 9 8 . T h e v isa p e tit io n s w e re a p p ro v e d o n Ju ly2 7 , 1 9 9 8 b u t a vi s a di d noti s s ue bec aus e Shahza d’ s par ent s w er e onl yper m anentr es i dent s t hen and not y e t n a tu ra lize d U .S . citize n s, a n d a s a re su lt, S h a h z a d ’s p e tit io n d a te d id n o t f a ll w ith in t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c u t - o f

f d a t e f o re l i g i b i l i t y. 1 A ft ert he t err or i s tat t acks of Sept ember 11, 2001, t he U . S. G overnm entes t abl i s hed t he N at i onal Secur i t yE nt r y - E xi tR egi s t r at i on Sy s t em, w hi ch r equi r ed men atl eas t14 y e a rs o ld w h o w e re c iti z e n s f ro m p re d o m in a n tlyM u slim c o u n tries (in c lu d in g P a k ista n ) to re g iste r w ith th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d C u sto m s E n f o rc e m e n t. W h e n S h a h z a d v o lu n tar ily-3-

compl i ed w i t h t he r egi s t r at i on, on February4, 2003, t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t ys er ved hi m w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear , char gi ng hi m w i t h r emoval on gr ounds of hi s over s t ay . H e w as det ai ned fort w o day s , buts ubs equent l yr el eas ed on a $2, 500 bond. Shahzad f

i l ed an a s y l um pet i t i on, w hi ch he s ubs equent l yw i t hdr ew . O n J anuary11, 2005, th e IJ is su e d a re m o v a l o rd e r, b u t allo w e d S h a h z a d u n til M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 to v o lu n tar ily departt he U ni t ed St at es . A - R at135- 136. O n A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 5 , S h a h z a d f ile d a m o tio n to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s b e f o re th e IJ . H e ar gued thathe di d notdepartvol unt ar i l ybyM ay11, 2005 “[d] ue t o a s er i ous m edi cal con dit i on . . . . ” A -R at12 3 (“T he ali en’s fai l ure t o d epartw as caused b ya ser i ou s i l l ness w hi ch made i tdanger ous fort he al i en t o fl y . T he al i en s uffe r s fr om a ce r ebr al hemorrhage a nd has been unde ra doct or ’ s car e form anyy ear s . T hi s condi t i on m akes h im su b jec t to se izu re s a n d p e rio d s o f u n c o n sc io u s.” ). H e a lso n o ted th a t h e w a s e lig ib le f o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s, w h ich w o u ld e lim in a te th e b a sis f o r h is re m o v a l, be c a u se h is fat her had beco m e a natural i zed U . S . ci t i zen o n July29 , 20 05 such thathis app roved v i sa p e tit io n w a s m a d e c u rre n t. T h e IJ stated that S h ah za d h ad “n o t sho w n that h is m ed ical co n d it ion is so se v ere as t o pr eventhi m fr om l eavi ng t he U ni t ed St at es . ” A - R at117. T he I J al s o found t hat S h a h z a d h a d “ n o t s h o w n e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s to e x c u s e h is f a ilu re to d e p a rt . . . .” Id . Shahzad f

i l ed a t i m el yappea l t o t he B I A , ar gui ng t hatt he I J err ed i n fi ndi ng t hat-4-

h is m e d ica l co n d iti o n w a s n o t se v e re e n o u g h a n d th a t ce re b ra l h e m o rrh a g e p re v e n ted h im fr om depart i ng vol unt ar i l y . C ons equent l y , Shahzad a r gued thatt he I J s houl d have gr ant ed hi s m ot i on t o r eopen a nd al l ow ed hi m t o appl yforadj us t m entof s t atus on t he bas i s of hi s father ’ s natur al i zat i on. A - R at10- 14. O n M ar ch 28, 2006, a s i ngl e- m ember panel of t he B I A aff i r m ed and a dopt ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. T he B I A found t hatShahzad’ s A ugus t9, 2005 m ot i on w as fi l ed more t han 90 day s aft ert he I J ’ s i ni t i al J anuary11, 2005 or der . T he B I A al s o hel d t hatt her e i s no

“ e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s” p ro v isio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c (d ), w h ich b a rs a n a lien in v iolati o n o f a v o lun taryd ep arture o rde r fro m ap p ly ing fo r ce rt ain f o rm s o f d iscreti o n ary im m igrati o n reli ef

(i n clud ing ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al an d ad justm en t of

statu s). In h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , S h a h z a d a rg u e s th a t th e B IA a n d th e IJ a b u se d th e ir di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen be caus e he w as el i gi bl e t o adj us thi s s t atus on t he bas i s of hi s father ’ s natur al i zat i on. T he G overnm entr es ponds t hatt he admi ni s t r at i ve ag en cies d id n o t abu se th eir discreti o n sinc e S h ah za d ’s m o ti o n to reo p en w as f il ed m o re t han 90 day s aft ert he 

### IJ ’s initia l volun tary depart ure order. I I . JURI SDI CTI ON AND STANDARD OF REV I EW We have juri sdic ti onun der 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2(a) (1), wh ic h p rovides for ju dici al rev iewo f f in al o rd ers o f

rem o v al. S

ee R o m a n ish

yn v. A t t y. G en . 

### , 455 F. 3d 175, 180 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) . Whe r e , a s he r e , the Boar d a dopt s the i mm i gr at i on judge ’ s de c i s i on and a dds-5-



### its o w nreaso n s, th is C o urt rev iew s b o thd ecisio n s. Fadiga v . A t t y. G en . , 488 F. 3d 142, 15 3, n. 16 (3d C i r. 20 07 ). O ur st a nd a rd of re vie w f or quest i on s of

l a w i s d e no vo 

### . Id. at 15 3-54 . W e r evie w f

inding s of f

ac t for substantia l e vidence and, there fo re , m ay no t s et th em asid e un less a reaso n ab le f act-f in d er w o u ldb e co m

p elledto f

in dto th e co ntrary . Gabuni y a v . Att y . Ge n. , 4 6 3 F .3 d3 1 6 , 3 2 1 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e d en ial o f a m o tio nto r e ope n or r e c ons i de r

i s adi s c r e t i onary

i s s ue , whi c h we r e vi e w for abus e of di s c r e t i on. S ee S evo ia n v. A sh cro

ft , 290 F. 3d 166, 170- 71 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) . “ Unde r the abus e of di s c r e t i on s t andar d, the Boar d’ s de c i s i on m us t be r e ve r s e d i f i t

i s ‘ ar bi tr ary , i rr at i ona l , or contrary to law.’” Id . at

174. I I I . DI SCUSSI ON T h e tw o qu estio n s inth is ap p eal are (1 ) w h eth er th e B IAan dIJ ab u sedth eir di s c r e t i on i n de nyi ng Shahz a d’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n on gr ounds that i t wa s unt i m e l y

and (2 ) w h eth er S h ah zadis statuto rily b arredf ro m ap p lyin g f

o r ad j u stm en t o f

statu s. A. 8 U .S.C. § 12 29 a( c) (7)( C)(i ) r equire s that a “m otion to reopen shallbe file d wi thi n 90 day s of the dat e of e ntry of afi na la dm i ni s tr at i ve or de r of r e m ova l . ” A de c i s i on be c om e s fi na l“ upon wa i ve r of a ppe a lor upon e xpi r at i on of the t i m e t o a ppe a li f no ap p eal is tak en ,” w h ich ev er co m es f irst. 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .3 9 . S in ce S h ah zadw aiv edh is-6-



### ri gh t t o app ea l t

he IJ ’s vo luntar

y depart ure order, the operati ve st art dat e for the 90-day pe r i od t o fi l e the m ot i on t o r e ope n wa s J anuary 11, 2005. T h e relev an t d ates inth is case are n o t ind isp ute. S h ah zadd idn o t f ile a m o tio nto re op en un ti l Aug ust 9, 200 5. As the BIA and IJ corr ec tly fo un d, this fili ng date was cl early m ore than 9 0 d ays a fter

the I J’ s order

and there fo re Sh ahza d’s m otion w as unt i m e l y. B. Turni ng t o the i s s ue of whe the r Shahz a d i s barr e d fr om

a pplyi ng for

a djus tm e nt

of statu s, th e G o v ernm en t arg u es th at th e B IAan dIJ co rrectly f o un dth at 8 U .S .C . § 1229c ( d) ( 1) ( B) bar s hi m

for ape r i od of 10 ye ar s fr om a ppl yi ng for

a djus tm e nt

of s t at us be c aus e Shahz a d di d not

de part the Uni t e d St at e s by

May 11, 2005. Th e BIA and the IJdid n ot abuse their disc re ti onin find ing that Shahzad’s m ed ical co n d itio nd idn o t p rev en t h im f ro m v o luntarily

d ep artin g f

ro m th e U n itedS tates. The BI A r e a s one d that

“ the l i ke l i hood of the r e s ponde nt s uffe r i ng as e i zur e on the a i r c r a ft [wa ]s not

c l e ar fr om the doc t or ’ s l e tt e r . ” A- R at 2. Though the journe y

woul d be p o ten tially

d if f icu lt, S h ah zad ’s f

ailure to d ep art w as vo lu n ta ry . S in ce 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c(d )(1 ) ap p lies to any alienw h o “v o luntarily

f ails to d ep art,” it ex ten d s to S h ah zad . Whil e Shahzad has repeat edly argu ed throug ho ut thes e procee ding s that his m edic al co n d itio nco n stitutes ex cep tio n al circum stan ces su chth at th e statute d o es n o t ap p ly to-7-



### him , his argum ent i s bas ed ona ver si onof the s tatute repeal ed in 19 96 , a s the BIA co rrectly n o ted . Se e, e . g. , Barr i os v . Att ’ yGe n. , 399 F. 3d 272, 272 ( 3d Ci r . 2005) . The curren t v ersio no f

th e statute d o es n o t p ro v id e f o r su chex cep tio n s. I V . CONCLUSI ON I n concl us i on, w e fi nd t hatt he B I A and I J di d notabus e thei r d iscr et i on i n deny i ng S h a h z a d ’ s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n a n d t h e r e f o r e we d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.