2006 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 12-6-2006 

# In Re: Arguet a 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 . 06-4330

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_2006

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 2006 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 " In Re: Argue t a " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 123. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/123C L D - 17 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. 06- 4330

____________ I N R E : M AUR I CI O AR GUE T A, Pet i t i oner

__________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o M D / PA C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 01724)

___________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderR ul e 21, Fed. R . A pp. Pr o.

O ct ober19, 2006 B efor e: R E N D E L L , SM I T H and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed D ece m ber6, 2006 )

__________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________________ P E R C UR I AM M aur i ci o A r guet a fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, chal l engi ng hi s or derof r emoval . O n O ct ober4, 2006, he fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus i n t hi s C our t . H i s pet i t i on i s s ub- capt i oned “A ppeal t o D eci s i on of 9/ 15/ 06. ” H e as ks fora “da yi n cour t , bya fa i r , j us tand r eas onabl e tr i erof fa ct s and l aw s , exami ni ng [M at t erof] A D A M I A K , [23 I & N D ec. 878 (B IA 2 0 0 6 )] a n d V IE N N A C O N V E N T IO N .”2

A w r i tof m andamus i s an extr aor di naryr emedyt hatw i l l onl ybe i s s ued i f the peti t i on er ( 1) has no otheradeq uate m eans of ob t ai ning t he d esi red r el i ef, and (2) has a “cl earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o t he w r i t . H ai nes v. L i gget tG r oup, I nc. , 975 F. 2d 81, 89 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). “[ M ]a n d a m u s is n o t a s u b stitu te f o r a p p e a l an d a w rit o f

m a n d a m u s w ill n o t be g ran ted if re li ef

ca n b e o b tai n ed b yw ayo f o u r ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n . ” In re C h am b ers D ev . C o . , 1 4 8 F . 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 2 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T o t he ext entA r guet a s oughtr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s Sept ember15, 2006 or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on, he s houl d have f i l ed a not i ce of

appea l i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t . I n t he i nt er es t s of j udi ci al economy , w e dec l i ne t o t r ans fert he pet i t i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o be docke t ed as a not i ce of appea l . A r guet a’ s habea s pet i t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ts oughtt o chal l enge the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( B I A ’ s ) deci s i on d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re o p e n h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . A s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt n o te d , a r emoval or derm ayonl ybe cha l l enged byw ayof a pe t i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed i n t he courtof a p p e a ls f o r t h e ju d ic ia l c ir c u it in w h ic h th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e c o m p le te d th e p ro c e e d in g s . W e agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rtt hat i tl acked j uri sdi ct i on t o en t ert ai n the pet i t i on ; t hu s, an appe al fr om t he C our t ’ s deci s i on w oul d be fut i l e. T o t he ext entA r guet a’ s m andamus pe t i t i on coul d be cons t rued as a pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, w e al s o l ack j ur i s di ct i on, as t he pet i t i on i s unt i m el y . T he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s dat ed J une 28, 2006. A pet i t i on for re v ie w o f

th a t d e c is io n w o u ld b e tim e ly o n ly if f ile d w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f

th e d e c is io n . 83

U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) . N ei t herA r guet a’ s m andamus pe t i t i on norhi s habea s pet i t i on w as fi l ed w i t hi n t he 30 dayper i od. A rg u e ta h a d “ a d e q u a te m e a n s o f o b tain in g ” re v iew o f

th e B IA ’s d e c isio n – h e c o u ld have f i l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew . H i s fai l ur e t o do s o does notw arr antm andamus r el i ef. W e w i l l t her efor e denyt he pet i t i on.