2010 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 4-15-2010 

# S h ams uddin S i kande r 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 . 09-1868

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_2010

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 2010 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 " S h am s udd in S i kande r v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1502. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1502I M G - 165 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. 09- 1868

___________ S HAM S UDD I N SI KAN DER; S ALI NA SI KAN DER; RUF F EL S I KAN DER, P eti ti o n ers

v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN os . 070- 892- 880, 070- 868- 193 and 070- 868- 148) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 14, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F ISH E R and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 15, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AMS a lin a a n d R u f f e l S ik a n d e r a re th e w if

e a n d so n o f

p e tit io n e r a n d rid e rs to h is 1 c l a i m. 2 L ead pe t i t i onerSham s uddi n Si kander s eeks r evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on 1 A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) or derdi s m i s s i ng the appe al fr om the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyhi s pet i t i on. I . Si kander , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of B angl ades h, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1993 w i thouthavi ng been a dm i t t ed. H e appl i ed foras y l um al l egi ng thathe w as per s ecut ed on th e b a s i s o f

h i s p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n f

o rh i s me mb e r s h i p i n th e J a t i y a p o l i t i c a l p a r ty . On Sept ember23, 1998, an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. S ik a n d e r d id n o t ap p e a l th e d e c isio n , an d c o n se q u e n tly , h is or i gi nal i m m i gr at i on hear i ng w as nottr ans cr i bed. I n 2008, m or e than t en y ear s aft erthe I J or der ed hi s r emoval , Si kanderfi l ed a m ot i on t o r eopen hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs t o r eappl yforas y l um bas ed on cha nged countrycondi t i ons . Si kanderar gued thatB angl ades h w as i n a dec l ar ed s t at e of emer gencys i nce J anuary11, 2007, and thatthe mi l i t aryhad come t o hi s hom e i n 2002 s eeki ng hi s w her eabout s . H e al s o att es t ed thats i nce the s t at e of e m er gencyw as decl ar ed, h is h o u se h a d b e e n se a rc h e d se v e ra l ti m e s, a n d th a t h is b ro th e r h a d b e e n re p e a ted ly det ai ned and a bus ed i n an ef for tt o fi nd hi m , m os ts ever el yi n J anuary2008. Si kanderA s both t he B I A and governm entnot e, the I J err oneous l yfound thatSi kander 2 w a ited “ 1 0 m o n th s” a f

ter th e sta te o f

e m e rg e n c yw a s d e c lar e d in B a n g lad e sh to f ile h is m ot i on t o r eopen. T he r ecor d demonstr at es thathi s O ct ober2008 m ot i on w as fi l ed 1 year and 10 m onths a f

t e rth e J a n u a r y 2 0 0 7 d e c l a r a t i o n o f a s t a t e o f

e m e r g e n c y. A pet i t i on forr evi ew m us tbe fi l ed w i thi n thi r tyday s afe rthe dat e of the fi nal 3 or derof r emoval . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) ; St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386, 405- 06 ( 1995) Si kanderfi l ed hi s pet i t i on on M ar ch 26, 2009, m or e than t en y ear s aft erthe I J ’ s deni al of 3 s uppor t ed hi s m ot i on w i th t he 2006 and 2007 Bangl ades h C ountryR eport s and as s or t ed new spaper art i cl es. T h e IJ d e n ied S ik a n d e r’s m o tio n to re o p e n . T h e IJ f o u n d th a t h e h a d f

iled h is m ot i on l ong aft erthe 90- days t atut orydeadl i ne, and thathe fa i l ed t o s at i s fythe “c hanged co u n tryco n d it ion s” e x ce p ti o n . E v en if S ikan d er c o u ld sh o w a m aterial ch an g e in c o u n try condi t i ons , the I J not ed thathi s 22- m onth del ay i n fi l i ng forr eopeni ng underm i ned the 2 ver aci tyof hi s cl ai m . Fur ther , the I J found thatSi kander ’ s al l egat i ons di d notw arr ant pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um t o gr anthi s unt i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen, es peci al l yas he fai l ed to offer anydo cum entat i on t o co rr ob orat e his assert i on s. Si kanderappea l ed t o t he B I A , w hi ch af fi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. T he B I A agr eed that Si kan der had fai l ed to est abli sh t hat chang ed cir cum st ances ex cused the un t i m el i ness of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen a nd ther efor e w as pr ecl uded fr om fi l i ng a s econd appl i cat i on for a s y l u m. S i k a n d e r , th r o u g h c o u n s e l , f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. T o th e e x t e n tth a tS i k a n k e rs e e k s r e v i e w o f th e I J ’ s S e p t e mb e r2 3 , 1 9 9 8 o r d e r , we l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w h i s c l a i m s b e c a u s e h i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s u n t i m e l y. 3h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m. 4 A c c o rd in g ly , the o n lyq u e stio n p ro p e rlyb e f o re th is C o u rt is w h e th e r th e B IA a b u se d its d iscreti o n in d en y ing S ikan d er’s m o ti o n to reo p en . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a); L iu v . A tt ’y G en. , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . M ot i ons forr eopeni ng ar e gene r al l ydi s favor ed b e c a u s e o f

th e th re a t th e yp o s e to f in a lity. IN S v . D o h e rt y , 5 0 2 U .S . 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 (1 9 9 2 ). T he B I A ’ s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on w i l l notbe di s turbed unl es s i ti s “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , or co n tr aryto law . ” G u o v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A n al i en mustgener al l yfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen w i th the B I A “no l at erthan 90 d a y s a f t e rth e d a t e o n wh i c h th e f i n a l a d mi n i s tr a t i v e d e c i s i o n wa s r e n d e r e d . ” 8 C. F . R. § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . T hi s deadl i ne does notappl yt o m ot i ons thatr el yon evi dence of

“ c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g in th e c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lity. . . if s u c h e v id e n c e is m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe p re v io u s h e a rin g .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii). H e re , S ik a n d e r d id n o t f ile th e m o tio n to re o p e n w ith in th e 9 0 -d a yw in d o w ; th e re f o re , h e m u st s h o w c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in B ang l adesh in order t o ex cuse t he u nti m el i ness. I n ar gui ng thatcountr ycondi t i ons have c hanged, Si kander ’ s pet i t i on di s cus s es t he i m pactof the s t at e of e m er gencydecl ar ed on J anuary11, 2007, i n B angl ades h. R el y i ng on hi s aff

i davi t , hi s pet i t i on det ai l s how hi s hous e and hous es of r el at i ves have be en s ear ched s ever al t i m es , and mem ber s of hi s fami l yhave be en har as s ed betw een 2003- 2006 bythe pol i ce. Si kanderemphasi zes thati n J anuary2008, hi s br otherw as5

det ai ned, beat en, t or tur ed, and i nt err ogat ed bythe pol i ce i n an att empt t o di s cover Si kander ’ s w her eabout s , and thathi s br otherr equi r ed medi cal att ent i on forhi s s er i ous in ju rie s. H is b rie f

a lso in c lu d e s a 1 5 -p a g e d ire c t ex c e rp t f ro m th e 2 0 0 7 C o u n tryR e p o rts forB angl ades h. Si kanderi ntr oduces an addi t i onal cl ai m thathe fe ar s he w i l l fac e v io len c e b e c a u se h e is A h m e d ian , alth o u g h h e n e v e r a ss e rte d h is re lig io n a s p a rt o f h is o r i g i n a l a s y l u m c l a i m. W e conc l ude thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o excus e the u n tim e lin e ss o f

S ik a n d e r’s m o tio n to re o p e n b a se d o n c h a n g e d c o n d iti o n s. D e sp ite S ikan d er’s claim that the B o ard fa il ed to ad d ress c o u n tryco n d it ion s, w e f ind that the B IA adequa t el yaddr es s ed i t s bas i s fordeny i ng r el i ef. Fi r s t , Si kander ’ s m ot i on w as bas ed on the s tat e o f e m erg en cythat w as d ec lared in 2 0 0 7 ; ho w ev er, he w ait ed 2 2 m o n ths b ef o re fi l i ng his m oti on t o reope n, and fai l s t o p rovi de an exp l anati on for this delay . H e al so c o u ld h a v e f

iled a m o tio n to re o p e n so o n a f ter h is b ro th e r w a s d e tain e d a n d to rtu re d in J anuary2008, a keyfac t oron w hi ch he r el i es w hen s eeki ng hi s ow n r el i ef, and y etfai l ed t o do s o. A s both t he I J and B I A found, i tappea r s thatSi kander ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen coinci ded w i th h i s det enti on , as opp osed to chan ged con dit i on s. I n addi t i on, w hi l e Si kanderpr ovi des gener al evi dence of pol i t i cal unr es t , the 2007 C ountryR eportm akes l i t t l e ment i on of per s ecut i on orvi ol ence t ow ar ds m ember s of the J a tiya p a rt y . S ik a n d e r a ls o p ro v id e s n o e v id e n c e th a t h e w ill p e rs o n a lly f a c e p e rs e c u tio n . A l though he al l eges thathi s br otherw as t or tur ed and r equi r ed medi cal car e, he does not6

p ro v id e a n ye v id e n c e f

ro m h is b ro th e r o r f

a m ily m e m b e r t o c o rr o b o ra te h is c la im s . A ccor di ngl y , beca us e Si kanderfai l s t o s how thatthe B I A act ed arbi tr ar i l y , i rr at i onal l y , or contr aryt o l aw , the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen musts t and. Fi nal l y , w e not e thatSi kander ’ s ar gum entthatthe mat t ers houl d be r emanded beca us e the r ecor d i s i ncompl et e i s w i thoutm er i t . A s the governm entnot es , thi s i s the fi r s tt i m e i n w hi ch Si kanderas s ert s thathe ca nnotpr oper l ychal l enge the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs beca us e no tr ans cr i ptof the hea r i ng exi s t s , and ther efor e, thi s cl ai m i s unexhaus t ed. See L i n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 119- 23 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . M or eover , the r eas on no tra n sc rip t ex ists is b e c a u se S ik a n d e r f a iled to a p p e a l th e IJ’ s in iti a l d e c isio n , w h ich th is C o u rtlack s jurisdicti o n to co n side r. Forthes e r eas ons , the pet i t i on forr evi ew i s deni ed. I n l i ghtof ourdi s pos i t i on, Si kander ’ s pendi ng m ot i on fors t ayof r emoval i s deni ed as m oot . See C atneyv. I N S, 178 F . 3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 6 n . 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).