2010 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 1-12-2010 

# V ithl ani 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 . 07-4623

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_2010

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 2010 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 ithl ani v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2081. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2081I M G - 014 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 os . 07- 4623 & 08- 2990

___________ N A S E E M A N A N T V IT H L A N I; T W IN K L E A N A N T V IT H L A N I, a m in o r, b ya n d th ro u g h , h e r G u a rd ia n A d L ite m , N A S E E M A N A N T V IT H L A N I, h er M o ther, P eti ti o n ers v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN os . A 77- 713- 130 & A 77- 713- 132) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember12, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, R O T H and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : J anuary12, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM P eti ti o n ers, N ase em an d T w ink le V ith lani, see k rev iew o f tw o o rde rs of the B o ard2

of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , one deny i ng thei rm ot i on t o r eopen a nd the other d e n y in g th e ir m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e ir p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. N a se e m V ith lan i, a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f In d ia, e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in N ovember1998 on an H 1- B vi s a. H erhus band A nantand daught erT w i nkl e fol l ow ed on H4 v i s a s i n F e b ru a r y1 9 9 9 . I n 1 9 9 9 , Na s e e m f i l e d a n a f

f i r ma t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m, w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , l i s t i ng herhus band and da ught eras der i vat i ve bene fi ci ar i es . ( A . R . 603. ) I n i t , s he al l eged that s he and he rhus band had be en per s ecut ed bym ember s of herhus band’ s fami l ybas ed on th e ir in ter f

a ith m a rria g e . (A .R . 6 0 6 .) O n S e p tem b e r 4 , 2 0 0 1 , the yw e re se rv e d w ith N ot i ces t o A ppear , al l egi ng t hatt heyhad r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es w i t hout author i zat i on bey ond t he t i m e per i od perm i t t ed bythei rvi s as , w hi ch cha r ges they co n ce d ed . (A . R . 6 2 4 . ) O n A ugus t8, 2002, t he I J deni ed thei rr eques t s forr el i ef, concl udi ng thattheyhad fa il ed to es tablish tha t th eysu ff ere d p ast p erse cu ti o n o r ha d a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on. ( A . R . 398- 404. ) O n J anuary16, 2004, the B I A i s s ued an opi ni on agr eei ng w i t h t he I J and di s m i s s i ng t hei rappea l . ( A . R . 156- 57. ) Pet i t i oner s di d notfi l e a pe t i t i on fo r rev iew in this C o u rtat th at t im e. T h eyall eg e tha t, fo ll o w ing the issu an ce o f th e B IA ’s deci s i on, t hei rat t or ney , A na J uneau, t ol d t hem t hatther e w as nothi ng el s e theycoul d do w ith re sp e c t to th e ir c a se a n d th a t th e ir o p tio n s w e re e ith e r to g o b a c k to In d ia o r to3

re m a in in th e U n ited S tate s illeg a lly . T h e yc laim th a t th e yf irst le a rn e d th a t th e yc o u ld have f i l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew i n t hi s C our ton D ece m ber30, 2006, aft erA nantw as t aken i nt o cus t odybyI m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cementagent s bas ed on a w arr ant f o r h is d e p o rta tio n ste m m in g f ro m th e B IA ’s f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. N as eem t hen r et ai ned the s ervi ces of a s econd a t t orney , R ahul M ancha nda, w ho as s i gned an a s s oci at e athi s fi r m , Shahl a K han, t o r epr es entthe V i t hl ani s . O n J anuary22, 2007, t heyfi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen w i t h t he B I A , al l egi ng thatpr i orcouns el , M s . J uneau, had bee n i neff

ect i ve i n herr epr es ent at i on of them t hr oughoutthe r emoval pr ocee di ngs and i n fai l i ng t o i nform t hem of t hei rr i ghtt o appea l . ( A . R . 287- 307. ) T heycl ai m ed that t heyfi r s tl earned of thei rcouns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s on oraboutD ece m ber30, 2006, and t hatt hei rm ot i on t o r eopen w as fi l ed w i t hi n 90 day s of thatdi s covery . O n M ar ch 26, 2007, t he B I A deni ed the mot i on bas ed on pet i t i oner s ’ fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he r equi r ement s foral l egi ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el as s etouti n M at t erof A s s ad, 2 3 I. & N . D e c . 5 5 3 (B IA 2 0 0 3 ), a n d M a tte r o f L o z a d a , 1 9 I. & N . D e c . 6 3 7 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ). ( A . R . 175- 76. ) T he B I A fur t herconcl uded thatpet i t i oner s had notexer ci s ed due di l i gence i n pur s i ng t hei rcl ai m s , as theyfai l ed t o expl ai n t he del aybetw een the al l eged in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l f

ro m 2 0 0 2 to 2 0 0 4 a n d th e f ilin g o f th e irm o tio n in 2 0 0 7 . ( I d. ) Pet i t i oner s di d nots eek r evi ew of thatdeci s i on. T hr ough pr es entcouns el , pet i t i oner s fi l ed a s econd mot i on t o r eopen on Sept ember 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , alle g in g th a t atto rn e y s M a n c h a n d a a n d K h a n p ro v id e d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e inW h ile th e lette r w a s d a ted F e b ru a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , all p a rties a g re e th a t itw a s w ritten in 1 2 0 0 7 . (A .R . 5 5 , n .2 .) 4 fi l i ng t hei rfi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen. ( A . R . 93- 145. ) T heycl ai m ed thattheyfi r s tl earned of this i n ef fe cti v en ess o n o r ab o u t A u g u st 1, 20 0 7 , m o re tha n fo u r m o n ths a fter the B IA deni ed thei rfi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen. T he B I A deni ed the s econd mot i on on N ovember13, 2 0 0 7 a s tim e - a n d n u m b e r-b a rre d a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t p e tit io n e rs w e re n o t en tit led to equi t abl e t ol l i ng. ( A . R . 54- 55. ) T he B I A hel d t hatpet i t i oner s had fa i l ed t o expl ai n t he s t eps , i f any , t hatt heyt ook t o i nves t i gat e and a s s ertthei rcl ai m s dur i ng thatt i m e and, addi t i onal l y , t hatt heyhad fa i l ed t o s how how the conduc tof the att orney s w ho r epr es ent ed them i n connec t i on w i t h t hei rfi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen pr ej udi ced thei rcas e, as t her e w as not hi ng t hos e att or ney s coul d have done t o al t erthe fa ctthatpet i t i oner s fai l ed t o exer ci s e due di l i gence i n pur s ui ng thei rcl ai m s forr el i ef a nd i nves t i gat i ng anypot ent i al rec o u rse a g ains t th eir fir st at torn ey . (A . R . 5 5 . ) A s the B IA n o ted, pe ti ti o n ers w ere pr es entatt he 2002 hea r i ng w hen the I J r ender ed hi s deci s i on, not i ng al l of the i nadequa ci es i n t hei rcas e. I n t hei r2007 l ett ert o A t t orneyJ uneau, pet i t i oner s det ai l ed 1 s i x a l l e g a t i o n s o f

mi s c o n d u c twh i c h o c c u r r e d d u r i n g th e r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . ( A. R. 249- 250. ) B as ed on thi s s equenc e of e vent s , the B I A concl uded: “The r es pondent s have sim p lyf a iled to e x p lain w h yth e yw e re c o m p lete lyu n a w a re o f a n yp ro b lem s w ith th e ir 2 0 0 2 re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s u n til D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , m o re th a n f o u r y e a rs a f

ter th e ir r emoval hear i ng and nea r l yt hr ee y ear s aft erthei rappea l w as di s m i s s ed. T heyhave f ai l ed5

to sh o w that theytoo k an ystep s to a d d ress the se issu es o r oth erw ise i n v esti g ate a n d asse rt th e irc la im s .” (A .R . 5 5 .) Pet i t i oner s t hen fi l ed thei rfi r s tpet i t i on forr evi ew on D ece m ber10, 2007, w hi ch w as docket ed atC . A . N o. 07- 4623. Pet i t i oner s concurr ent l yfi l ed a mot i on for re c o n s id e ra tio n p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b ), w h ic h th e B IA d e n ie d o n J u n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 . ( A . R . 7. ) O n J une 27, 2008, pet i t i oner s fi l ed the pet i t i on forr evi ew docket ed atC . A . N o. 08- 2990. T hes e pet i t i ons forr evi ew w er e cons ol i dat ed and w e have j ur i s di ct i on over b o th o f th e m p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . Pet i t i oner s chal l enge the B I A ’ s deni al of thei rs econd mot i on t o r eopen a nd the d e n ia l o f th e irm o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e d e n ia l o f

th e irs e c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n . T he s econd mot i on t o r eopen w as pr emi s ed on the i neff ect i venes s of the att orney s w ho per fec t ed the fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen. W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen or forr econs i der at i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on, underw hi ch s t andar d w e w i l l uphol d t he B oar d’ s deci s i on unl es s i tw as arbi tr ary , i r r at i onal orcontr aryt o l aw . See Sevoi an v. A s h c ro f t, 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T he B I A concl uded thatpet i t i oner s w er e notent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng under M ah m o o d v . G o n za les, 4 2 7 F . 3 d 2 4 8 , 2 5 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In M ah m o o d , this C o u rt confi r m ed thatt he t i m e forfi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen i s s ubj ectt o equi t abl e t ol l i ng and t hati neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el can pr ovi de the bas i s fors uch t ol l i ng. See i d. at 251. H ow ever , t hi s C our tfur t herhel d t hatM ahmood w as notent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng6

as he had notexer ci s ed the r equi s i t e di l i gence i n pur s ui ng hi s cl ai m s . See i d. at252. T he B I A her e r eac hed a s i m i l arconcl us i on. A s s um i ng A t t orneyJ uneau di d pr ovi de i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance , t he B I A concl uded thatpet i t i oner s fai l ed t o di l i gent l ypur s ue any reli ef in the p eriod b etw ee n the B IA ’s en tryo f a fin al ord er o f re m o v al an d A n an t’ s dep ort at i on . H aving reached t his determ i nati on , the B IA con cl ud ed thateven i f t heirfi rs t m ot i on t o r eopen ha d been pr oper l ypr epar ed byA t t orney s M ancha nda and K han, they coul d nothave t aken a dvant age of equi t abl e t ol l i ng due t o t hi s l ack of di l i gence and t her efor e, t heyhad notes t abl i s hed pr ej udi ce a t t r i but abl e t o t he def i ci entpr epar at i on of the s ec o n d m o ti o n to reo p en . S ee F ad iga v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 8 8 F . 3 d 1 4 2 , 1 5 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (e x p lain in g th a t o n c e th e B IA d e ter m in e s th a t th e L o z a d a re q u ire m e n ts a re m e t, i t pr ocee ds t o as s es s w hethercompet entcouns el w oul d have a ct ed di ffe r ent l yand w hether the p eti ti o n er w as p rejud iced b yco u n sel’s ac ti o n s). Pet i t i oner s cont es tt he B I A ’ s di l i gence det erm i nat i on, ar gui ng thati ti s the dat e of di s coveryof the i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance , notthe dat e of the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance i t s el f, t hat “mar ks t he begi nni ng of the t i m el i ne fora fi ndi ng thatthe al i en has exer ci s ed due di l i gence i n pur s ui ng hercl ai m . ” ( Pet ’ rR epl yB r . , 3. ) “[I ] n or dert o equi t abl yt ol l the fi l i ng deadl i ne fora mot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , an al i en m us tdemonstr at e thathe ors he has exer ci s ed due di l i gence dur i ng the ent i r e per i od he or s he s eeks t o t ol l . T hi s i ncl udes bot h t he per i od of t i m e bef or e the i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w as ors houl d have be en di s cover ed and the per i od fr om thatpoi ntunt i l the7

mo t i o n t o r e o p e n wa s f

i l e d . ” Ra s h i d v . M u k a s e y , 5 3 3 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 2 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . As t he B I A m ade c l ear , pet i t i oner s s etfor t h s i x gr ounds on w hi ch theycl ai m ed A t t orney J uneau’ s r epr es ent at i on dur i ng t he i ni t i al r emoval pr ocee di ngs w as defi ci ent . W hi l e they m a yn o t h a v e b e e n a w a re o f th e leg a l co n c e p t o f

“ in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l” u n til m e e tin g w ith A tto rn e y s M a n c h a n d a a n d K h a n a t th e e n d o f 2 0 0 6 , the yw e re a w a re o f a ll of the fa ct s under l y i ng t hei rcl ai m forthe pr ece di ng foury ear s . T he fa ctthattheyw ai t ed unt i l A nantw as t aken i nt o cus t odyi n 2006 t o s eek a s econd opi ni on does notr endert hem unaw ar e of the bas i s fort hei rcl ai m unt i l thatt i m e. A s the B I A ’ s deci s i on w as not a rb itrar y , irratio n a l o r c o n tra ryto law , w e c o n c lu d e th a t ita c ted w ith in its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e rs ’ s e c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n . W i t h r es pectt o t hei rm ot i on forr econs i der at i on, the B I A hel d t hatr atherthan s p e c i f y i n g a n ye r r o r s o f

f a c to rl a w i n i t s p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n a s r e q u i r e d b y8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( b ) , t h e mo t i o n e s s e n t i a l l yr e s t a t e d a l l o f th e a r g u me n t s p r e v i o u s l yma d e . ( A. R. 7. ) W e agr ee that , undert hes e ci r cumst ance s , the B I A pr oper l ydeni ed the mot i on for r econs i der at i on. See N ocon v. I . N . S. , 789 F. 2d 1028, 1033 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( uphol di ng d en ial o f m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n as p rop er e x erc ise o f th e B IA ’s discre ti o n w h ere p eti ti o n er f

ail ed to m ee t r eg u lat o ryreq u ir em en ts) . Fi nal l y , fort he fi r s tt i m e i n t hei ropeni ng br i ef, pet i t i oner s r ai s e a c l ai m al l egi ng that theysh o u ld n o t hav e b ee n p lace d into rem o v al pro ce ed ing s in 2 0 0 1 w h il e the yw ere still res id in g leg a llyin th e U n ited S tate s. A s th e G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s, th is iss u e is b o th8

w ai ved and une xhaus t ed. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ; A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l no t add ress itan yfu rth er. Ba s e d o n t h e f

o r e g o i n g , we wi l l d e n yth e c o n s o l i d a t e d p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w.