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 4-14-2005 

# Lin 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 . 04-2805

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 authori 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 " L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1357. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1357C apt i on amended pur s uantt o R ul e 43( c) , Fed. R . A pp. Pr o. * 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- 2805

____________ YUN HU I L I N, Pet i t i oner v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , *

R es pondent

____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an O rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 75- 565- 956)

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

A pr i l 1, 2005 B e f o re : A L IT O , S M IT H a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 14, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . Y un H ui L i n ( “Li n”) pet i t i ons thi s C our tt o r evi ew the J une 2, 2004 deci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) w hi ch deni ed herm ot i on t o r econs i deran in a b se n tia rem o v al ord er issue d b ythe Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) in F eb rua ry2 0 0 3 u n d er 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( A ) . T he form erI N S char ged Li n w i th r emovabi l i tyas an al i en w ho e n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s wi th o u ti n s p e c t i o n u n d e rI . N. A. § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A) ( i ) , 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 8 2 (a )(6 )(A )(i) (2 0 0 0 ). L in se e k s a sy lu m b e c a u se sh e v io late d C h in a ’s o n e c h ild pol i cybyhavi ng tw o chi l dr en i n C hi na, w as for ced t o abortherthi r d pr egnanc yi n C hi na, and bel i eves thats he w i l l be t ar get ed fors t er i l i zat i on i f s he r eturns t o C hi na. Forthe r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , w e s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our di s cus s i on. T hi s cas e has a l engthypr ocedur al hi s t ory , i n w hi ch the I J i s s ued tw o in a b se n tia re m o v a l o rd e rs a n d tw ice f o u n d n o “ e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s” to e x p lain L in ’s f a ilu re to t i m el yappea rforhers chedul ed pr ocee di ngs . A n i n abs ent i a r emoval or derm aybe r es ci nded “i f the al i en demonstr at es thatthe fa i l ur e t o appea rw as beca us e of e xcept i onal c irc u m sta n c e s.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(C ). L in su c c e ss f u llyc h a llen g e d th e f

irst in abs ent i a r emoval or derand obt ai ned a r eopeni ng fr om the B I A . I n the fi r s tchal l enge, t he3

B IA f o u n d “ e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s” e x iste d w h e re L in w a s la te to th e h e a rin g d u e to heratt orney ’ s t ar di nes s and handl i ng of otherm att er s befor e di r ect i ng L i n t o herhear i ng. L i n w as t ar dybynear l ytw o hour s forhers econd he ar i ng, caus i ng the i s s uance of a s econd i n abs ent i a re m o v a l o rd e r. L in ’s m o tio n to re o p e n th a t o rd e r is th e su b jec t o f th is pet i t i on forr evi ew . L i n agai n as s ert s “exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” i n thats he fi r s ts ought t o fi nd heratt orneyathi s offi ce t o no avai l befor e pr ocee di ng t o herhear i ng and, upon her arri val atthe co urtho use, w as det ai ned i n lengt hysecuri tyl i nes. I n February2003, the I J found thatL i n’ s r eas ons forhers econd f ai l ur e t o appea r di d notamount t o “exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” bey ond hercontr ol , and deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen. I n February2004, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thoutopi ni on and d ism issed the a p p ea l. L in f il ed a m o ti o n to rec o n side r w ith the B IA , arg u ing that the IJ i m pr oper l yw ei ghed the fa ct or s thatcaus ed Li n’ s fai l ur e t o appea r , and thatthe B I A err ed i n aff i r m i ng the dec i s i on w i thoutopi ni on. I n J une 2004, the B I A deni ed r econs i der at i on, f in d in g n o f

a c tu a l o r l e g a l e rr o rs in e ith e r t h e IJ d e c is io n o r t h e B IA ’s e a rl ie r a f f ir m a n c e . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l. A b d u la i v. A sh c ro

ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 547 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a m o tio n to re o p e n o r r e c o n s id e r f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . IN

S v . D o h e rty , 502 U . S. 314, 323 (19 9 2 ). W h ere the B IA af firm s w ith o u t op inion the f ind ing s o f th e IJ, w e re v iew the IJ’s4

o p in io n a n d s c ru tin iz e its re a s o n in g . D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc) . A ddi t i onal l y , pr i nci pl es of C hevr on defe r ence ar e appl i cabl e i n the i m m i gr at i on c o n te x t. A b d u la i, 239 F. 3d at551 ( ci t i ng IN S v. A gu i rre-A gu i rre , 526 U . S. 415, 424 (19 9 9 )). T he s cope of

r evi ew of a r emoval or derent er ed in a b se n tia i s l i mi t e d b y8 U. S . C. § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( D ) t o: ( 1) the val i di tyof the not i ce pr ovi ded t o the al i en, ( 2) the r eas ons f o r t h e a lie n ’s n o t a tte n d in g th e p ro c e e d in g , a n d (3 ) w h e th e r o r n o t th e a lie n is re m o v a b le . T he fi r s tand thi r d i s s ues have be en conc eded byL i n, confi ni ng thi s r evi ew t o herr eas ons forfai l i ng t o att end the s econd he ar i ng. III . W e mustdet erm i ne w hetherthe I J abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng L i n’ s s econd m ot i on t o r eopen r emoval pr ocee di ngs . U nder8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( A ) , anyal i en w ho “does notatt end a pr ocee di ng underthi s s ect i on, s hal l be or der ed r emoved in a b se n tia if the Servi ce e s t abl i s hes bycl ear , unequi vocal and convi nci ng evi dence thatthe w r i t t en not i ce w as s o pr ovi ded and thatthe al i en i s r emovabl e. ” Sect i on 1229a( b) ( 5) ( C ) fur ther pr ovi des thats uch an or derm aybe r es ci nded “upon a m ot i on t o r eopen f i l ed w i thi n 180 d a y s a f ter th e d a te o f

th e o rd e r o f

re m o v a l if th e a lien d e m o n stra tes th a t th e f a ilu re to ap p ea r w as b ec au se o f e x ce p ti o n al circu m stan ce s. ” “ E x ce p ti o n al circu m stan ce s” a re ci r cumst ance s bey ond the contr ol of the al i en s uch as the s er i ous i l l nes s of the al i en or5

ser i ou s i l l ness or deat h o f t he spo use, chil d o r par ent of the ali en, bu tdo no ti nclude l ess co m p ell ing circu m stan ce s. 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(e )(1). T h e B IA ’s r e o p e n in g o f L in ’s c a se a f

ter th e f irst i n abs ent i a r emoval or der ampl i fi es that“exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” mayexi s tforr eas ons otherthan s er i ous i l l nes s . A s the B I A expl ai ned, the t ot al i tyof ci r cumst ance s m aybe appl i ed t o det erm i ne w hether“exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” exi s tand enc om pas s fac t or s s uch as the r es pondent ’ s di l i gence , the unexpe ct ed and una voi dabl e natur e of the ci r cumst ance s , t he ext entof the l at enes s , and evi dent i arys uppor t . T he B I A found thatL i n demonstr at ed di l i gence byherarr i val atthe courthous e at9: 00 a. m . and good fa i th byw ai t i ng forher a tto rn e y , w h o w a s la te a n d a tten d e d o th e r m a tters u n til 1 0 :5 0 a .m . w h e n h e to o k L in to herhear i ng. B utas t o L i n’ s s econd mot i on t o r eopen, both the I J and the B I A found s uch d i l i g e n c e l a c k i n g , wh e r e Li n d i d n o ta rr i v e a tth e b u i l d i n g u n t i l 1 0 : 1 5 a . m. f o ra 9 : 0 0 a . m. h ea ri n g an d w as f

u rth er d elay ed b ysec u ri tyli n es f o r en tryto the co u rth o u se, w h ich w ere nei therunexpec t ed norunavoi dabl e. W h e re a sta tu te is sile n t o r a m b ig u o u s w ith re sp e c t to a sp e c if ic is su e , the re v iew is lim ited to d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e a g e n c y ’s a n sw e r is b a se d o n a p e rm iss ib le c o n s tru c tio n o f

th e s ta tu te . A bdulai , 239 F. 3d at551 ( ci t i ng C hevr on U. S. A . I nc. v. N at ur alR es our ces D ef

ens e C ounci lI

nc . , 467 U . S. 837, 843 ( 1984) ) . T hi s cas e turns on th e m e a n in g o f

“ e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s,” a ter m in h e re n tlyin c a p a b le o f a b so lu te d e f in iti o n . A lth o u g h L in a rg u e s th a t th e IJ d id n o t g iv e p ro p e r w e ig h t to h e r in a b ili tyto6

s peak Engl i s h, i ti s a perm i s s i bl e i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e t o fi nd thatL i n’ s r eas ons for n o t atte n d in g th e p ro c e e d in g w e re n e ith e r c o m p e lli n g n o r b e y o n d h e r c o n tro l, t o cons t i tut e “e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” A ccor di ngl y , ther e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on. A l i ens fac i ng r emoval ar e ent i t l ed t o D ue Pr oces s underthe U ni t ed St at es C o n s titu tio n . A bdulai , 239 F. 3d at549. D ue Pr oces s r equi r es : ( 1) fac t fi ndi ng bas ed on a re c o rd p ro d u c e d b e f

o re th e d e c isio n m a k e r a n d d isc lo se d to th e a lien , (2 ) th e o p p o rtu n ity t o m ake a r gum ent s on herow n behal f, and ( 3) the r i ghtt o an i ndi vi dual i zed de t erm i nat i on o f h e r i n te re s ts . I

d. at549. T he deni al of Li n’ s m ot i on t o r eopen di d noti m pl i cat e anyof these ri gh t s. W e have cons i der ed al l of the ar gum ent s of the part i es and conc l ude thatno fur therdi s cus s i on i s nece s s ary . I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, w e w i l l denyL i n’ s pet i t i on for r e v i e w.