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 6-13-2005 

# M ark e 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 . 04-3031

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
" M arke v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1024. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1024T h e H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , S e n io r Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls 1 fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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- 3031
NU RI M AR KE, Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A 73- 569- 674) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 7, 2005 B efor e: A M B R O , ST A PL E T O N , and A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udges 1 ( Fi l ed: J une 13, 2005 )

OP I NI ON

### 2

A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udge N ur i M arke, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M ace doni a, form er l yY ugos l avi a, pet i t i ons for
r 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 r eopen. H e mai nt ai ns t hatt he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r ej ect i ng hi s cont ent i ons thathe w as deni ed the ef

fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and thatcountr ycondi t i ons had cha nged s i nce t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um . W e denythe pet i t i on for
r evi ew beca us e w e conc l ude thathi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m w as not ti m elyfil ed . W e a lso h o ld tha t he h as f ail ed to d em o n str ate tha t cha n g ed co u n try condi t i ons s uppor thi s cl ai m t hathe has a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on i f he i s not grant ed asy l um i n the U nit ed S t at es. I M r . M arke ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a non- i m m i gr antvi s i t ori n N ovember1988
w i t h author i zat i on t o r emai n fors i x m onths . A not i ce t o appea r( “N T A ”) w as i s s ued on A ugus t25, 1997. I tal l eged thatM r . M arke w as r emovabl e bec aus e he r emai ned i n t he U ni t ed St at es l ongert han perm i t t ed byhi s vi s a. A thi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs , M r . M arke conc eded the al l egat i ons i n t he N T A and ap p li ed fo r asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. O n M ay2 9 , 1 9 9 8 , the IJ f o u n d M r. M ark e re m o v ab le an d d en ied h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. M r. M ark e’s req u est fo r vo lun taryd ep arture w as g ran ted. T h e IJ o rde red M r. M ark e to d ep art8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2) provides: 1 E x c e p t as p ro v id e d in p a ra g ra p h ( c ) ( 3 ) o f th is s e c tio n , a p a rtym a yf ile o n ly one mot i o n t o r e o p en deport at i on orexcl us i on pr ocee di ngs ( w hetherbefor e the 

### 3 vol unt ar i l ybyJ ul y18, 1998, and i f he di d not , thathe be r emoved t o M ace doni a. M r . M arke fi l ed an a ppeal w i t h t he B I A on J une 29, 1998. T he B I A aff i r m ed the IJ’ s re m o v a l o rd e r w ith o u t o p in io n o n Ju ly1 0 , 2 0 0 2 . T h e B IA a lso g ra n ted h im th irty d ay s to d ep art vo lun tari ly . T h e B IA ’s de cisi o n w as se rve d o n R o b ert J. S h an n o n , M r. M arke’ s at t or neyof r ecor d. O n M a y2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , M r. M a rk e , rep re se n ted b yh is p re se n t co u n se l, file d a m o tio n to
r eopen hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs . H e al l eged thatM r . Shannon’ s r epr es ent at i on w as inef fe cti v e b ec au se h e f

ail ed to ad v ise h im that h is ap p ea l had b ee n af firm ed b ythe B IA
a n d th a t h e h a d th irtyd a y s to d e p a rt v o lu n tar ily . H e a lleg e d th a t h e d id n o t d e p a rt w ith in t he thi r t y - dayper i od beca us e he di d notl earn of the B I A ’ s or derunt i l s ever al m ont hs l at er . H e furt heras s er t ed thatbeca us e of hi s form ercouns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s , he i s barr ed for t en y ears from recei ving cert ai n fo rm s of rel i ef, i ncludi ng adjustm ent of st atus. II M r. M ark e c o n tend s tha t th e B IA erred in d en y ing h is m o ti o n to reo p en fo r fa il u re t o s how pr ej udi ce f

r om hi s form ercouns el ’ s negl i gence . T he B I A al s o concl uded, how ever , t hatt he cl ai m of i neff ect i venes s of couns el w as unt i m el yunderthe ni nety - day ti m e li m itset fo rth in 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2). 1B oar d ort he I m m i gr at i on J udge) and thatm ot ion m us tbe fi l ed no l at erthan

90 day s aft er t he dat e on w hi ch t he fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve deci s i on w as r ender ed i n t he pr ocee di ng s ought t o be r eopene d, or on or befor e Sept ember30, 1996, w hi c h e v e r i s l a t e r . Ex c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n p a r a g r a p h ( c ) ( 3 ) o f t h i s s e c t i o n , an ali en m ay fil e o n lyo n e m o ti o n to reo p en rem o v al pro ce ed ing s (w h ethe r be fo re t he B oar d or t he I m m i gr at i on J udge) and t hat m ot i on m us t be fi l ed n o lat er t han 90 day s aft ert he dat e on w hi ch the fi nal admi ni str ati v e deci s i on w as r ender ed i n t he pr ocee di ng s oughtt o be r eopene d. 

### 4 “[W ]hen t he B oard or an Im m i grat i on Judg e den i es r eop ening on pri m a facie cas e g ro u n d s, th e u lti m a te d e c isio n sh o u ld b e re v iew e d f o r a n a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , w h ile fi ndi ngs of fa cts houl d be r evi ew ed fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” S e v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft, 290 F. 3d 166, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T hus , “the admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)( 4)( B ). “D i scr et i on arydecis i on s of t he B IA w i l l no tbe d i sturbed u nles s t heyar e found t o be ‘ arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ’ ” T i p u v . I NS , 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng S o Ch u n Ch u n gv . I NS , 6 0 2 F . 2 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 9 )). T h e B IA ’s in iti a l d e c isio n w a s is su e d o n Ju ly1 0 , 2 0 0 2 . M r. M a rk e d id n o t f ile h is
m ot i on t o r eopen unt i l M ay20, 2004. M r. M a rk e ’s o p e n in g b rie f d o e s n o t ad d re ss th e B IA ’s a ltern a tiv e h o ld in g th a t h is
m o tio n to re o p e n w a s u n tim e ly , n o r d o e s h e a rg u e th a t th e tim e f o r f ili n g h is m o tio n to
r eopen w as t ol l ed bec aus e of hi s form erat t orney ’ s al l eged f ai l ur e t o i nform hi m of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. “A n i s s ue i s w ai ved unl es s a part yr ai s es i ti n i t s openi ng br i ef, and for8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3) provides: 2 I n r emoval pr ocee di ngs pur s uant t o s ect i on 240 of the A ct , the t i m e l i m i t at i on se t f o rth in p a ra g ra p h (c )(2 ) o f th is se c tio n sh a ll n o t ap p lyto a m o tio n to r eopen f i l ed pu rsua ntt o t he pr ovi s i ons of § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) . T he t i m e and num er i cal l i m it at i ons s etfor t h i n par agr aph ( c) ( 2) of thi s s ect i on s hal l not app l yt o a m oti on t o reope n p roceedings: ( i ) Fi l ed pur s uantt o t he pr ovi s i ons of § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( A )(1) or § 1 0 0 3 . 2 3 (b)(4 )(i ii )(A )(2); (i i) T o appl yorr eappl yforas y l um orw i t hhol di ng of deport at i on bas ed on ch an g e d circu m stan ce s arisi n g in the co u n tryo f n ati o n ali tyo r i n the c o u n try t o w hi ch deport at i on has been or der ed, i f s uch evi dence i s m aterial and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe pr evi ous hear i ng; ( i i i ) A gr eed upon byal l part ies and j oi nt l yfi l ed. N otw i t hs t andi ng s uch agr eement , t he part i es m aycont es tthe i s s ues i n a r eopene d pr ocee di ng; or ( i v) Fi l e d b yt h e Se r v i c e i n e x c l u s i o n o rd e p o r t a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s whe n t he b a sis o f th e m o tio n is f

ra u d in th e o rig in a l p ro c e e d in g o r a c rim e th a t w o u ld su p p o rtterm ination o f asy lum in acc o rda n ce w ith § 1 2 0 8 . 2 2 (f) o f th is ch ap ter. 

### (co nt inue d...) 5 t hos e purpos es a pas s i ng r efe r ence t o an i s s ue . . . w i l l nots uffi ce t o br i ng thati s s ue befor e thi s cour t . ” L a b o r e rs ’ I n t’ l U n io n v . Fo s te rW

h e e le rC o r

p ., 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (c itatio n a n d q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). T h u s, M r. M a rk e h a s w a iv e d a n yc h a llen g e in t hi s appea l t o t he corr ectnes s of the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe mot i on t o r eopen ba s ed
o n inef fe cti v en ess w as u n ti m ely . A cc o rdin g ly , w e d o n o t con side r th e m erit s o f th e B IA ’s
a lte rn a tiv e h o ld in g th a t h e w a s n o t p re ju d ic e d b yh is a tto rn e y ’s a lle g e d n e g le c t. M r . M arke’ s m ot i on t o r eopen i s al s o bas ed upon cha nged countrycondi t i ons . T hat cl ai m i s notbarr ed byt he t i m e l i m i t at i ons s etfor t h on 8 C . F. R . 1003. 2( c) pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . 1003. 2( c) ( 3) . M r . M arke s ubm i t t ed evi dence t o the B I A thatbetw een J anuaryand 2

### (. . . co nti nue d) 2 

### 6 J ul yof 2001, vi ol ence had occ ur r ed i n M ace doni a as a r es ul tof conf l i ctbetw een A l bani an s epar at i s t s and the M ace doni an governm ent . H e s ubm i t t ed s i x addi t i onal d o cu m en ts sho w ing that (1) M ac ed o n ian p o li ce h ad co n d u cted tortu re b etw ee n Jan u ary 2 0 0 0 a n d O c t o b e r2 0 0 2 , ( 2 ) t h e p o l i c e h a d tr e a t e d e t h n i c m i n o r i t i e s b a d l y, ( 3 ) tw e n t yse v e n A lb a n ian s in tra n sit w e re b e a ten o r tre a ted b a d lyb yth e p o lice , (4 ) te n sio n s in M ace doni a cont i nued i n A pr i l 2004 w hen the A l bani an fl ag w as fl ow n i n M ace doni a, ( 5) governm entt r oops had comm i t t ed gr ave a bus es i n an A l bani an vi l l age i n A ugus t2001, and ( 6) pol i ce a bus e of A l bani ans cont i nued the daythata fr amew or k peac e agr eement
w a s s ig n e d b e tw e e n th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d e th n ic A lb a n ia n s . T he B IA held that M r. M arke had no tm ethis bu rden of exp l ai ning “ho w tho se change s aff

ecthi s cl ai m foras y l um . ” B efor e thi s cour t , M r . M arke cont ends thathe
s houl d notbe “r equi r ed t o l ead the age ncyl i ke a s m al l chi l d, quot e fr om eac h exhi bi tand sta te w ith y e t m o re ‘d e tail o r sp e c if icity ’ h o w th e c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in M ace doni a af

fec thi s as y l um cl ai m . . . . ” H e has fai l ed t o expl ai n i n hi s pet i t i on for
re v ie w h o w th e a lle g e d c h a n g e d c o u n tr yc o n d itio n s a f f e c t h is c la im . T he B I A w as corr ectt o pl ace the bur den of pr oof of c hanged c ount r ycondi t i ons o n M r. M a rk e b e c a u s e M r. M a rk e n e v e r e s ta b lis h e d p a s t p e rs e c u tio n . S e e , e .g .,

### 7

A h m a d sh a h v . A sh c ro

ft , 396 F. 3d 917, 920 ( 8th C i r . 2004) ( not i ng thatunl es s the pet i t i onerhas es t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on, he ors he has the bur den of pr ovi ng change d
c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s); S im tio n v . A sh c ro ft , 393 F. 3d 733, 737 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( di s m i s s i ng pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on cha nged countr ycondi t i ons beca us e pet i t i oner fai l ed t o expl ai n how a rul er ’ s r etur n t o pow ercr eat ed condi t i ons di ffe r entfr om thos e that p re v a iled w h e n th e p e tit io n e r o rig in a llyso u g h t as y lu m ); c f B e r is h a j v . A s h c r o

ft, 378 F. 3d 31 4, 32 6-27 (3d C i r. 20 04 ) ( ho l ding t hat because pe t i t i on er had est abli shed p ast per s ecut i on, t he bur den of pr oof r egar di ng change d countr ycondi t i ons w as pl ace d on t he G overnm ent ) . T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byhol di ng thatM r . M arke had f ai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of s how i ng how change d countr ycondi t i ons w oul d aff ecthi s cl ai m for
a s y lu m . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f th e m o tio n to
rec o n side r.