## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 07
- 2611 O TAR S HA RASHID ZE , P etitio ner, v. M ICHAEL B. M UKASE Y, A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent .

____________ Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals
. No . A 77-857- 926

____________ A RG UE D J UNE 4, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 8, 2008

____________ Befo re B AUER, W OO D , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Ot ar S h ar ashi dze i s a nati ve of Georgia (th e c o un try i n th e C au casu s, not the U
. S. sta te) wh o w as gi ven a syl um i n the U ni ted S tat es on Oct o b e r2 5 , 1 9 9 9
. Le s s tha n thr e e y e a r s l a t e r, S ha r a s hi dze w as charged w i th and convi cted o fi nd ecentso l i ci tat i on ofa sex a ct fro m a m i nor
— a cr i m e punis h ab l e a s a m i sdemea no runde rI l l i no i s l aw, s ee 7 20 I L C S 5/ 11
- 14
. 1, b ut2 N o. 07
- 2611
con side red an aggra vate d felony for i m m igrati on p urpose s , s e e 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( A)
. Be c a us e he had com m i tte d a n agg ra vate d fel ony, S hara shi dze was subj ect to rem oval un d er 8 U
. S. C
. § 1227(a )(2)(A )( ii i)
. On J an ua ry 26, 20 06, an I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( IJ ) f ound Shar ashi dze re m ovabl e a nd te rm i nated hi s g ran t ofas yl um , ther eby rend ering him i ne li gible to adj us t his statu s to tha t of a perm anent r esi dent. Shar ashi dze appeal ed the IJ ’ s deci si on t o the Boa rd o f I m m i gr ati on Ap peal s ( BIA). The BI A affi rm ed on M ay 25, 2006 , and thi s c ou rt deni ed hi s peti ti on f orr evi ew o n M ar ch1 6, 2 00 7, a t th e sa m e ti m e di smi ss i nghi s due p ro c es s claim for failu re to ex h au st . Se e g e n e r ally Sh a rash idz e v. G o nz a les , 4 8 0 F. 3d 566, 570 (7th Cir. 2007). A l though S hara shi dze w anted to as ser t that the IJ di d not all ow him to prese nt eviden ce regard ing the “cou nt ervai l i ng equi ti es” ag ai nst r em oving h im fro m the U ni ted St ate s, he di d not m ake thatar gum ent unti lto o l ate . On M ay8 , 2 00 7, S ha r as hi dze move d to r eo penthe pr o ce eding s o n the gr o und o fi ne ffec ti ve ne ss o fc o uns el ; he al so prese nted an ar gum ent fo rwi thh o l dingr e mov a lunder the Conve nti on Agai nst Tor ture ( CA T )
. Thi s peti ti on was unti m el y, but Shar ashi dze ar gued that he was entit l ed u n d e rp r i n c i p l e s o fe q u i t ab l e t o l l i n gt o h a v e th e t i me w h ile h is e ar lier p et itio n for re vie w w as p en d in g i n th is cour t d i sr ega rded. T he B I A deni ed thi s m oti on o n J une 12, 20 07, c o nc l udi ngtha t S ha r as hi dze w as no t di l i g en t enough t o deser ve equi tabl e t ol l i ng, thati t would not reop en the p r o c e e d ings on i ts ow n, and that there w ere no chan g ed ci r cumst an ce s i n Ge o r g i a to war r an t a d if

-N o. 07
- 2611 3 fer ent di sposi ti on o fhi s ca se. S hara shi dze peti ti oned f or re vi ew o n J uly11 , 20 07. Shar ashi d ze ’ s peti ti on s uffer s fro m m ult i ple j uri sdic

ti onaldefects . Rega rdl ess o f t h e m er i ts ofhi s co m pla i nts ab o utthe e a r l i e rp r o c e s s h e r e c e i v e d, we mus tdi s m i ss hi s pet i ti o n fo rwanto fj ur i sdi ct i o n. In itia lly, w e m u s t id en tify th e is su es th at are p ro p er ly bef or e thi s co urt. T h i s co urt m ay enter tain peti ti ons f or re vi ew fro m fi nalo rder s o fr em ova l, i ncl ud i ng deni al s o f m ot ion s t o re op en , 8 U .S.C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ); i f th e p et itio n er is re m ov ab le as an ag gr av at ed felo n, h ow ev er , th atrev iew is l i m i ted to consi derat i on of j uri sdic ti on, consti tuti onal issues , and i ssu es of l aw , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (C) & ( D ). H er e, the onl y deci si on that we m ay re vi ew i s the J une 12, 2007, deni alo fS hara shi dze’ s m oti on to reo pen. W e there

f or e hav e noth i ng to sa y about the a rgum ents that S ha r a s hi dz e ha s p r e s e nt e d, a nd we h a v e a l r e a dyr ej e c t e d, th at rea c h ba c k t o th e c laim s h e a s s e rt ed ag ain st th e IJ i n hi s peti ti on chal l engi ng the re voca ti on of hi s a sy lee st atus a nd the de ni alo fhi s appl i ca ti o n fo ra dj ustm en t ofst atus. S ee Sharas hi dze, 48 0 F
. 3d at 570. Shar ashi dze ar gues that the f act that he is ar gui ng tha t hi s du e p r o c e s s r i g ht s we r e v i o l a t e d s o meh o w e xe m pts h im from th e o r d i n ar y t im e lim its th at ap p ly, bu t h e is w rong: 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (D), w hich aut horizes th is court to d ec id e c on st itu tio n al c laim s a n d qu es tio n s o f law , i s ex p licit ly c on st ra in ed by th e 3 0-d a y t im e lim it in § 1252 ( b) ( 1)
. S ee H ussa in v . Keisler, 5 0 5 F
. 3 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07) ( “Se cti on 1 252( a) ( 2) ( D) pl ai nl y s tat es that othe r l i m i tati o ns o n j udi ci alr ev i ew i n ‘ th i s se ct i o n’

— that i s,4 N o. 07
- 2611 sect i on 1 252

— st ill ap p ly.” ). U n les s s om e o th er p rin c ip le co nfer s j ur i sdi ct i o n upo n thi s co ur t, we m ayr evi ew the denia lo fthe m oti on t o re op en ( and onl y forl ega l, j uri sd ictional, and cons titution al error) but n ot the un d erly i ngde ni alo fthe pe ti ti o n fo rr ev i ew o fthe IJ ’ s dec i si o n. Se e A sere v. Go nz a les , 439 F.3d 378 , 380-81 (7th C ir. 2006). The j uri sdic ti onalbarag ai nst f actualargum ents defe ats m osto fS hara shi dze’ s o therar gum ents. S ee Kucan a v. M ukas ey, N o. 07
- 10 02 , 2 008 W L 26390 39 ( 7th Ci r. J uly7, 20 08 )
. To the e xt en t we ha ve j ur i sdi ction t o r ev i ew a ny o fth e se cl ai m s, i ti s o n l y f o rl e g a le r r o ro fth e k i n d we ha v e a l r e a dyde s c r ib e d. Fi rs t, S hara shi dze ar gues that the BI A i ncorre ctl y f ai l ed to gr ant hi m equi tabl e t ol l i ng be cause an appealwas pen di ngb efo r e this c o ur t. Hi s pet i ti o n fo rr ev i ew o fthe re m ov al or d er w as d en ied on M ay 25 , 200 6, an d h e filed h is m o ti o n t o r eo pena l m o sta y ea rl at er, o n May 8, 2 007. The us ua l tim e li m it i s 90 d ays, see 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a(c)(7)( A ) & ( C)( i )
. S hara shi dze s ay s that the cl ocksho uld s tar t fro m thi s co urt’ s di sposi ti on o fhi s a pp ea l o n M ar ch 16, 20 07, w hi ch w oul d bring hi s peti ti on withi n the 90- day l i m i t. Eq uit abl e t ol l i ng i s fund am ental l y about dil i gence , not w a i t i n g o u t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s . W e w i l l n o t c o mm en t di re ctl y o n w hetherS hara shi dze was dil i gent, be ca us e th at i s a m at te r o f f ac t th at i s o ut si de th i s cou rt’s j uri sdic ti on. S ee P a tel v. G o nz a les , 44 2 F
. 3d 1011 , 10 16 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ; 8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 2( a) ( 2) ( C)
. P resse d a t o r ala r g um ent t o ar ti cul ate exact l y what l egal q u es ti ons ar e pr es e nt e d i n the c ur r e nt pe t i t i o n, S ha r a s hi dz e ’ s c o un sel was u n ab le t o h elp u s. Sh ar as h id ze d id n oth av e t o w aitu n tilN o. 07
- 2611 5 thi s co urt rul ed to kno w wh etherhi s l aw yerhad orhad no t pr o per l y fi l ed do cument s as e ar l y a s ni ne mo nths ear l i er : the f acts substanti ating his cl ai m sho uld have bee n a v a i l ab l e mu c h e a r l i e rth a n Ma r c h 2 0 0 7
. A s i d e f r o m a fri vol ous due pro cess ar gum ent, S hara shi dze sugg est s no l e g a ln o r m t ha tthe BI A v i o l a t e d. Sh ar as h id ze arg u es th at ch a n g ed co n d itio n s in h is ho me count r y o fGe o r g i a j us t i fy r e o pe ningthe p r o c e e di ng s. Pe ti ti o ne r s m ayr ai se ch an g ed co unt r y c o ndi ti o ns regar dle ss of the 90- day deadli ne “i f such evi de n c e is m ate ri aland w as n ot a vai l abl e a nd would not have been d isc ov er ed or p re se n te d atth e p re vi o u s p ro c ee d in g.” 8 U.S
. C. § 12 29 a(c) ( 7) ( C)( i i )
. But once aga i n, thi s i s a que st i on o ff act that i s be yond r evi ew bythi s co urt. S ee P a tel , 442 F.3d at 101 6; 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (C). W he th er or not t h e IJ c ut som e corne rs i n regard to Sha rash idze ’s ri gh t to pres en t evide nc e on th e cou nt erva i l i nge qui ti es i s al so a questi on we c anno t r ea ch
. Sh ar as h id ze w aiv ed th is a rg u m en t b y f a i lin g t o ra ise it unti lhe r eached thi s co urt the first t i m e a ro und
. I t was to o l ate the n, a nd i t i s ev enl at erno w. The que st i o ns Shar ashi dze wants us t o re vi ew a re f actual : wh ether h e w as d ilige n t en ou gh to w ar ra n t ap p lica tio n of e q u itabl e t ol l i ng and w h et her the BI A co rr ectly found that c on d itio n s in G eo rg ia h ad n o t c h an ge d su fficie n tly to w arra n t withhol ding ofr em ova l
. Because w e l ack j u ris d ict ion to ad d r e ss th es e q u es tio n s, h is p et itio n is D IS MIS S ED .
9- 8- 08