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 10-13-2005 

# W i lli ams 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 . 04-3827

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 " W i ll i am s v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 418. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/418NOT 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- 3827

__________ D A N I A W I LLI A M S, 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; BU RE A U O F CI TI ZEN SH I P A N D I M M I G RA TI O N SER V I CE S,

R e sp o n d e n t.

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi 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 77- 635- 072)

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

Sept ember26, 2005

__________ B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S, and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: O ct ober13, 2005)

__________2 ____________ OP I NI ON

____________ R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge: Pet i t i onerD ani a W i l l i ams s eeks r evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff

i r m i ng an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deni al of herm ot i on t o r eopen re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. W ill iam s a rg u e s th a t h e r p ro c e e d in g s s h o u ld b e re o p e n e d d u e to the i neff ect i ve r epr es ent at i on of herpr evi ous couns el . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for r e v i e w. I. F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory W il li am s en tered the U n it ed S tat es o n M arc h 4 , 1 9 9 7 , rem aine d in the co u n try bey ond the dat e s he w as author i zed t o do s o, and, i n 1999, m arr i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. I n February2000, W i l l i ams fi l ed a Form I - 485, A ppl i cat i on t o R egi s t er Per m anentR es i dence orA dj us tSt atus , and herhus band fi l ed a Form I - 130, Pet i t i on for A l i en R el at i ve. Forr eas ons notcl ear , W i l l i ams’ hus band w i t hdr ew hi s pet i t i on the dayhe w as t o be i nt ervi ew ed byt he U ni t ed St at es C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces ( “U SC I S”) . W i l l i ams’ appl i cat i on w as ther efor e deni ed and s he w as pl ace d i n r emoval p ro c e e d in g s . In J u n e 2 0 0 1 , h e r h u s b a n d re n e w e d h is P e titio n f o r A lie n R e la tiv e . A sec o n d interview w as sc h ed u led a n d , o n ce ag ain, he w ith d rew h is pe ti ti o n at th e U S C IS in te rv ie w .3

A ft ert he s econd f

ai l ed att empt t o r egi s t eras a perm anentr es i dent , W i l l i ams w as i nform ed byherat t or neyt hatheronl yopt i on w as t o s eek vol unt arydepartur e ather r emoval hear i ng. H e di d notadvi s e W i l l i ams thats he coul d fi l e a Form I - 360 as a Sel fPet i t i oni ng A bus ed Spous e of a U ni t ed St at es C i t i zen. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge gr ant ed W ill iam s’ r e q u e st f

o r v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re o n O c to b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 , p e rm itt in g h e r to re m a in i n the countr yunt i l February15, 2002. A tthatt i m e, W i l l i ams expr es s l yw ai ved herr i ght to ap p ea l th e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s o rde r. A ft ert he r emoval hear i ng, W i l l i ams s oughtnew couns el . O n February15, 2002, s he fi l ed a Form I - 360 as a Sel f- Pet i t i oni ng A bus ed Spous e of a U ni t ed St at es C i t i zen a nd herpet i t i on w as appr oved on O ct ober9, 2002. W i l l i ams di d notfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen herr emoval pr ocee di ngs unt i l M ar ch 13, 2003, atw hi ch t i m e s he ar gued thather pr ocee di ngs s houl d be r eopene d due t o t he i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of herpr evi ous couns el and hernew el i gi bi l i t yforadj us t m entof s t atus bas ed on the appr oved I - 360 pet i t i on. T he Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e d e n ied h e r m o tio n o n th e g ro u n d s th a t itw a s f iled m o re th a n n in e ty day s aft er the final rem ov al order. T he B IA affirm ed o n the sam e groun ds. II. Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T h is C o u rt h a s ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s o rd e r u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). T he C our tr evi ew s t he deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on, w i t h “br oad d ef ere n ce ” to th e B IA ’s de cisi o n . E ze ag w u n a v . A sh cro ft, 3 2 5 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 9 (3d C ir . 2003) . R ever s al i s appr opr i at e onl yi f the B I A ’ s deci s i on w as “arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal , or4

co n tr aryto law . ” S ev o ian v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). III . D i s cus s i on A cl ai m of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i s a val i d bas i s fora mot i on t o r eopen p ro c e e d in g s b e f

o re a n im m ig ra tio n c o u rt u n d e r c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s. L u v . A sh c ro f t, 2 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ; M a t t e ro f L o z a d a , 1 9 I . & N. De c . 6 3 7 ( BI A 1 9 8 8 ) . An al i en mustfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge no l at ert han n in e ty d a y s a f

te r t h e d a te o n w h ic h th e f in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n w a s re n d e re d . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(1 ). F u rth e rm o re , an a lien is p e rm itt e d to f ile o n lyo n e m o tio n to r e o p e n p r o c e e d i n g s . I d . I n t h e i n s t a n tc a s e , th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e g r a n t e d W i l l i a ms v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re o n O c to b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 . B e c a u se W ill iam s w a iv e d h e r rig h t to a p p e a l, the or derw as fi nal att hatt i m e. 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 39. Y et , W i l l i ams di d notfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs unt i l M ar ch 2003, m or e than a y earaft erthe I m m i gr at i on J udge i s s ued i t s or der . T hus , i tw oul d appea rthe mot i on w as unt i m el yand s houl d have be en deni ed. W i l l i ams ar gues t hatt he pr i nci pl e of e qui t abl e t ol l i ng ext ends the ni nety - day deadl i ne forherm ot i on. E qui t abl e t ol l i ng perm i t s a fi l i ng r equi r ementt o be t ol l ed w hen a p a rtyh a s “ b e e n p re v e n ted f ro m f ili n g in a tim e lym a n n e r d u e to su f f icie n tlyin e q u itab le circu m stan ce s. ” S eit zing er v . R ea d ing H o sp . & M ed . C tr . , 1 6 5 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1999) . C our t s m us tus e equi t abl e t ol l i ng caut i ous l y , i d. , and notappl ythe doctr i ne w hen i ti s i ncons i s t entw i t h congr es s i onal i nt ent , L ongenett e v. K rus i ng, 322 F. 3d 758, 7675

( 3d C i r . 2003) . I n part i cul ar , equi t abl e t ol l i ng cannotbe appl i ed t o a t i m e l i m i t at i on t hat is “j u ri sd ict ion al. ” B o rge s v . G o n za les, 4 0 2 F . 3 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). E v en w h ere e q u itab le to lli n g d o e s a p p ly , p a rties a ss e rtin g it m u st u se “ d u e d ili g e n c e ” to p re se rv e th e ir cl ai m s . I rw i n v. D ep’ tof V et er ans A ffa i r s , 498 U . S. 89, 96 ( 1990) ; H edges v. U ni t ed S tat es, 40 4 F . 3 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). C our t s of appe al s forot herci r cui t s have he l d t hatthe ni nety - dayfi l i ng r equi r ement o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(1 ) is n o n -ju risd ictio n a l an d c a n th e re f o re b e to lled to acc om m odat e cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . I avor s ki v. I N S, 232 F. 3d 124, 134 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ; V ar el a v. I N S, 204 F. 3d 1237, 1240 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ; cf. B or ges , 402 F. 3d at406 ( hol di ng t hatt he 180- dayt i m e l i m i t at i on fora mot i on t o r eopen r emoval or der s ent er ed i n abs ent i a “i s m or e appr opr i at el ycons i der ed as anal ogous t o a s t atut e of li m it ati o n s an d , thu s, su b ject t o eq u it ab le t o ll ing ”). T h is C o u rth as n o t ru led o n w h ethe r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(1 ) is n o n -ju risd ictio n a l, an d th e f a c ts o f th is c a se m a k e it unnece s s aryforus t o do s o her e. W i l l i ams ar gues thatthe ni nety - dayfi l i ng r equi r ement s houl d have be en t ol l ed betw een O ct ober18, 2001 and February15, 2002, w hen s he w as unaw ar e thatcouns el had pr ovi ded heri neff ect i ve r epr es ent at i on. Fur t herm or e, s he cl ai m s thatt he fi l i ng r equi r ements houl d have be en t ol l ed w hi l e herI - 360 pet i t i on w as pendi ng betw een February15, 2002 and O ct ober9, 2002. A s s um i ng, w i t houts o hol di ng, thatW i l l i ams i s corr ecti n heras s er t i on thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng appl i es fr om O ct ober18, 2001 t o O ct ober9, 2002, i ti s cl eart hatthe doctr i ne does notappl yaft erthatt i m e and that6

h e r m o tio n to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s w a s th e re f o re s till u n tim e ly. W i l l i ams di d notul t i m at el yfi l e herm ot i on unt i l M ar ch 13, 2003, m or e than fi ve m onths aft erherI - 360 pet i t i on w as gr ant ed. T he expl anat i on s he pr ovi des forthi s del ay w as thati tw as neede d s o hernew couns el coul d i nves t i gat e the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance c laim . S h e a lso a rg u e s th a t re liv in g th e a b u se o f h e r h u sb a n d m a d e it d if f icu lt fo r h e r to actqui ckl yon t he mot i on. Fi nal l y , s he cl ai m s that , beca us e s he coul d onl yfi l e one m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs , s he nee ded t i m e t o gather“eve r ypos s i bl e s hr ed of evi dence i n s uppor tof [he r ] m ot i on. ” ( Pet . B r . 24. ) T hus , W i l l i ams bel i eves thats he us ed r eas onabl e di l i gence undert he ci r cumst ance s and thatthe ni nety - daydeadl i ne s h o u ld h a v e b e e n to lle d to p e rm it h e r t o f ile th e m o tio n . T hi s C our ts ym pathi zes w i t h the pl i ghtof W i l l i ams. I ti s cl earthats he has re c e iv e d p o o r c o u n s e l th ro u g h o u t th e s e p ro c e e d in g s , a f a c t th a t th e B IA a ls o re c o g n iz e d . Y et , s he has pr ovi ded no val i d ar gum entfort ol l i ng the ni nety - dayfi l i ng r equi r ement betw een the t i m e herI - 360 pet i t i on w as appr oved i n O ct ober2002 and the t i m e s he actual l ys oughtt o r eopen pr ocee di ngs i n M ar ch 2003. G i ven thatW i l l i ams and he r co u n sel h ad lon g b ee n aw are o f p rev iou s co u n sel’s m ist ak es b ythat p o int, an d that h er I360 pet i t i on forhad bee n appr oved form onths , i tw as r eas onabl e t o expec thert o fi l e a m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs w i t hi n t he ni nety - dayt i m e l i m i t . T he fa ctthatonl yone m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs i s perm i t t ed under8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 1) i s no ju stif ica tio n f o r a p a rtyf

a ili n g to a c t w ith in th e p re sc rib e d tim e . T h e d o c trin e o f e q u itab le7

t oll i ng m ustbe ap pli ed cau t i ou sl y , S ei t zi ng er, 16 5 F . 3d at24 0, and the B IA did not abuse i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdet erm i ned thatthe ci r cumst ance s fori t s appl i cat i on w er e not p re s e n t h e re . W e w ill th e re f o re D E N Y th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .

_____________________