2007 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 11-5-2007 

# Ayur z an a 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 . 06-1930

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_2007

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 2007 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 " Ayur zan a v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 270. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/270NOT 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- 1930

_______________ UGUUMURS AI KHAN A YUR Z ANA; RA I S S A B E M BE E VA; Z OL BA YAR UGUUMURS AI KHAN; AI S A UGUU M UR S AI KHAN, P eti ti o n ers v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

_______________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 72- 020- 095, A 70- 868- 627, A 70- 868- 628 and A 79- 303- 047) Im m i grat i on Judg e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

Sept ember27, 2007 B e f o re : A M B R O , J O R D A N a n d R O T H , C i rcui tJud ges. ( Fi l ed: N ovember5, 2007)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________A yu rz a n a ’s you n g e st c h ild , A z a -S a m a n th a , w a s b o rn in th e U n ited S tate s, a n d th u s is 1 a U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n n o t s u b je c t to re m o v a l.

2 J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge. U guum ur s ai khan A yur zana , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M ongol i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew o f th e 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 IA ) d e n y in g h is M o tio n to R econs i derthe B I A ’ s aff i r m ance of the dec i s i on deny i ng hi m as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e mo v a l , a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rth e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e . F o rth e 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. A yu rz a n a w a s a d m itt e d to th e U n ited S tate s o n o r a b o u t A u g u st 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 w ith author i zat i on t o s t ayunt i l February24, 1998. A l s o ent er i ng w i th hi m w er e hi s w i fe, R ai s s a B embeeva, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of R us s i a, and hi s tw o chi l dr en, Z ol bay ar , a nat i ve a n d c iti z e n o f

R u ss ia, a n d A isa , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f M o n g o lia. A ll o f

th e f a m ily 1 m ember s over s t ay ed thei rvi s as , and A yur zana fi l ed foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval on February21, 2002, four - and- a- hal f y ear s aft erthei rentryi nt o the U ni t ed St at es , al l egi ng per s ecut i on on the bas i s of hi s r ace and nat i onal i ty . A yur zana ’ s w i fe a nd c h ild re n w e re in c lu d e d in h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . A yu rz a n a a ss e rte d a t h is h e a rin g b e f o re th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e th a t h e h a d f a iled to fi l e hi s as y l um appl i cat i on w i thi n t he one- y earfi l i ng deadl i ne bec aus e a man named E duar do C or t ez, w ho A yur zana cl ai m ed r epr es ent ed hi m s el f as an att orney , dece i ved and3

d e f ra u d e d th e A yu rz a n a s in to b e lie v in g th a t h e w o u ld f ile a n a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n f o r t h e m . A f ter th e h e a rin g , the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e d e n ied A yu rz a n a ’s a sy lu m c laim , fin d in g th a t it w as unt i m el yand thatA yur zana had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s fori t s l at e fi l i ng. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge found thatther e w as no evi dence thatC or t ez e v e n e x iste d , o r th a t h e h a d a n yk in d o f a g re e m e n t w ith A yu rz a n a sta tin g th a t h e w o u ld fi l e an a s y l um appl i cat i on forhi m oranyof hi s fami l ym ember s . N ot i ng cr edi bi l i tyand otherpr obl ems w i th t he t es t i m onyof A yur zana and B embeeva, the I m m i gr at i on J udge al s o found thatA yur zana had fa i l ed t o m eetthe bur den of pr oof forw i thhol di ng of r emoval orr el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, and thus deni ed thos e cl ai m s as w el l . T he B I A aff

i r m ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on on N ovember4, 2005, not i ng thatA yur zana ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el yand thathe had notdemonstr at ed e n title m e n t to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l o r r e lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . A yu rz a n a d id n o t ap p e a l th a t d e c isio n o f th e B IA . In ste a d , h e f

iled a M o tio n to R econs i der , as s ert i ng thathe w as ent i t l ed t o as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and a g a in c la im e d th a t h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n w a s u n tim e ly b e c a u s e o f C o rt e z ’s d e c e p tio n . W i th thatm oti on , he als o sub m i t t ed ad dit i on al evidence, i ncludi ng C ort ez’s bu si ness car d, canc el l ed che cks m ade outt o C or t ez’ s company , l ett er s fr om C or t ez not i ng thathe w a s a ttem p tin g to o b tain a w o rk p e rm it fo r A yu rz a n a , an d lette rs f ro m f a m ilym e m b e rs in M ongol i a. T he B I A deni ed the M ot i on t o R econs i der , not i ng thatA yur zana had “not pr ovi ded addi t i onal l egal ar gum ent s , r efe r ence s t o a cha nge of l aw , orar gum ent s orT he B I A cons i der ed A yur zana ’ s m ot i on as both a mot i on t o r econs i derand a mot i on 2 to reo p en . F o r ea se o f re fe ren ce , w e w il l r ef er to ith ere as th e M o ti o n to R ec o n side r. I n St one , the courtdi s cus s es a 90- dayt i m e per i od fors eeki ng r evi ew , butthatw as 3 s hor t ened bythe I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996, w h ich s p ec ifi es a 3 0 -da yp eriod . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(1 ). 4 as pect s of the ca s e thatw er e over l ooked. ” The B I A al s o not ed that , t o the ext entthat A yu rz a n a w a s m a k in g a n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im , h e h a d f a iled to c o m p ly w i th the r equi r ement s of Mat t erof Lozada , 1 9 I& N D ec . 6 3 7 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ). T h e B IA fur therfound thatthe addi t i onal evi dence s ubm i t t ed byA yur zana , cons i der ed i n the natur e of a m ot i on t o r eopen, di d notpr ovi de s uffi ci entpr i m a fa ci e evi dence of p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te d g ro u n d , a n d th u s d e n ie d th a t m o tio n a s w e ll.

II. A yur zana pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the N ovember4, 2005 and the February17, 2006 deci s i ons of the B I A . A yur zana , how ever , di d notfi l e hi s not i ce of appea l unt i l M ar ch 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f th e F e b ru a ry1 7 , 2 0 0 6 o rd e r o f th e B IA d e n y in g h is M o tio n to R econs i der , 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) , butl ong aft erthe N ovember4, 2005 fi nal or derof

2 r emoval fr om the B I A . B eca us e the not i ce of appea l i s onl yt i m el yas t o the or derof the B I A deny i ng A yur zana ’ s M ot i on t o R econs i der , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew onl yt hat o rd e r o f th e B IA . S e e S t o n e v . I NS , 514 U . S. 386, 405- 06 ( 1995) ( “[A ] deport at i on or der i s fi nal , and r evi ew abl e, w hen i s s ued. I t s fi nal i tyi s notaff ect ed bythe s ubs equentfi l i ng of a mot i on t o r econs i der . ”) . T hus , t o the ext entthatA yur zana r eques t s r evi ew of the 35

N ovember4, 2005 fi nal or derof the B I A , the pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be di s m i s s ed, and w e w il l r ev iew o n lythe B IA ’s de n ial o f A yu rza n a’s M o ti o n to R ec o n side r. W e r e v i e w t h e d e n i a l o f a mo t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e rf o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n , th e s a me s ta n d a rd u s e d to re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re o p e n . B or ges v. G onz al es , 402 F. 3d 3 9 8 , 4 0 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e B IA ’s d e c isio n “ w ill n o t b e d istu rb e d u n les s [ it] is f o u n d to be arbi tr ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” G u o v . A sh c ro ft , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A m ot i on t o r econs i ders houl d poi ntoutthe err or s of fa ctorl aw comm i t t ed byt he B IA . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b ). U n d e r 8 C .F .R § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 ), th e B IA h a s d isc re tio n to reo p en p roc ee d ing s if the m o v an t st ates n ew fa cts t o b e p rov ed at a h ea ri n g that are s uppor t ed byaff

i davi t s orot herevi dent i arym at er i al . T hatnew evi dence m us tbe mat er i al a n d h a v e b e e n u n a v a ila b le a t th e f o rm e r h e a ri n g . I

d. T h e B IA d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g A yu rz a n a ’s M o tio n to R e c o n s id e r. A yu rz a n a d id n o t p re s e n t n e w le g a l a rg u m e n ts , o r p o in t o u t e rr o rs o f f a c t o r l a w . In s te a d , h e larg elyp rese n ted a rgu m en ts i d en ti ca l t o tho se h e p rese n ted in h is brief to th e B IA appea l i ng the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge. Fur therm or e, addi t i onal evi dence that A yur zana att ache d t o hi s M ot i on t o R econs i derw as notnew evi dence , s i nce i tw as a v a ila b le a t th e tim e o f

th e O c to b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 h e a ri n g b e f o re th e Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e . 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) ( t o s ucce ed on a mot i on t o r eopen, the “e vi dence s oughtt o be offe r ed [mustbe] m at er i al and [mustnothave be en] avai l abl e and c oul d nothave be enLozada r equi r es that , t o m ake a n i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , a pet i t i oner 4 m us ts ubm i tan af

fi davi ts ett i ng for th the fa ct s , i ncl udi ng the agr eementw i th couns el aboutthe s cope of

r epr es ent at i on, i nform couns el aboutthe al l egat i ons ( s o thatcouns el has an opportuni tyt o r es pond) , and s t at e w hethera compl ai ntw as fi l ed w i th s t at e bar a u th o ri tie s . L u v . A sh c ro ft , 2 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

6 di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe form erhear i ng”) . E ach of the che cks and l ett er s fr om C or t ez’ s companyhave da t es fr om ei ther1999 or2000, and thus w er e ava i l abl e atthe 2003 hear i ng. T he l ett er s fr om A yur zana ’ s fami l ym ember s al s o fai l t o pr es entnew e v id e n c e , sin c e th re e o f th e f o u r le tters d e sc rib e e v e n ts th a t o c c u rre d , at le a st in p a rt, i n 2002 and 2003, and the fourth l ett ercont ai ns no dat es atal l . T hus , beca us e A yur zana coul d have pr es ent ed thi s evi dence athi s hear i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge, i ti s not new evi dence thatw oul d j us t i fythe r eopeni ng of hi s cas e orthe r econs i der at i on of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. A yur zana ar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi s M ot i on for R econs i der at i on beca us e i tcomm i t t ed an e rr orof l aw w hen i ts t at ed thatanyi neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im th a t A yu rz a n a w a s a ttem p tin g to m a k e in h is M o tio n to R econs i derw oul d fai l beca us e he ha d notm etthe r equi r ement s of M at t erof Lozada , 19 I & N D ec. 637. A yur zana as s ert s thatbeca us e C or t ez w as nota l aw y er , he w as not 4 re q u ire d to m e e t Lozada , a n d th a t th e B IA e rr e d w h e n it r e q u ir e d h im to d o s o . A yur zana ’ s cl ai m , how ever , m i s i nt erpr et s the B I A ’ s deci s i on. T he B I A di d s aythat A yur zana had fa i l ed t o m eetthe r equi r ement s of Lozada , butthatw as aft eri thad al r eady s t at ed thatther e w as no pr operbas i s forr econs i der i ng i t s ear l i errul i ng. H avi ng s t at ed7

th a t A yu rz a n a f

a iled to m e e t th e leg a l sta n d a rd f o r re c o n sid e rin g th e c a se , the B IA m e re ly not ed thatanycl ai m fori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w oul d have f ai l ed bec aus e of A yur zana ’ s fai l ur e t o s at i s fythe r equi r ement s of Lozada . B e c a u se th e B IA d id n o t re ly o n A yu rz a n a ’s f

a ilu re to m e e t Lozada i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, he c a n n o t latc h o n to th a t sta tem e n t to a ss e rt th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g h is m o tio n . T h e p a in f

u l f a c t is th a t A yu rz a n a f

a iled to p re se n t an yn e w leg a l ar g u m e n ts, o r to p o in t o u t e rr o rs o f

f a c t o r l a w , o r t o p re s e n t n e w e v id e n c e th a t h a d n o t b e e n a v a ila b le . H e n c e , the B IA ’s d e c isio n w a s n o t an a b u se o f d isc re tio n , an d h is p e tit io n f o r re v iew w ill be deni ed. T h e re m aind er o f th e a rgu m en ts th at A yu rza n a m ak es o n ap p ea l go to the B IA ’s aff i r m ance of the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi m as y l um , w i thhol di ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture. A s w as st at ed ab ov e, becau se A yur zana di d notfi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w i thi n 30 day s of the B I A ’ s deci s i on, w e do n o t h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th o s e c la im s . See Stone , 514 U . S. at405- 06 . T o the ext enthe s eeks r evi ew of thos e cl ai m s , the pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be di s m i s s ed. III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be di s m i s s ed i n partand d e n ied in p a rt.