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- 4122

___________ FRAN CI SCO RA M I REZ, 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 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 o. A 070- 916- 267) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M arg are t R eich en b erg

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

J ul y14, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : J ul y15, 2010)

_________ OP INI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Fr anci s co R ami r ez pe t i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) a f

f irm in g a n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) d e c isio n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to2

r e c o n s i d e r . 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. R ami r ez, a ci t i zen of

G uat emal a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n Sept ember1993 and w as p lace din rem o v al pro ce ed ing s fo r no t hav ing b ee n ad m itted o r pa roled . In F eb rua ry 1 9 9 4 , R a m ire z ap p lied f o r a sy lu m . A t a h e a rin g in O c to b e r 2 0 0 7 , R a m ire z w ith d re w h is appl i cat i on foras y l um , and ata hear i ng i n M ay2008, R ami r ez c oncede d r emovabi l i tybut req u ested ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al pu rsua n t t o IN A § 2 4 0 A (b)(1 ) [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )] b a se do n h is a lleg a tio n th a t h is re m o v a l w o u ldre su lt i n e x c e p tio n a l an de x tre m e ly u n u su a l h a rd sh ip to h is tw o U .S . citize n c h ildre n . R a m ire z a n dh is w if e tes tifie dth a t th e ir tw o y oung chi l dr en r el yon thei rfatherforemot i onal and phy s i cals upport . T heyt es t i fi ed thatthei rdaught erhas a s peec h pr obl em, and R ami r ez t akes hert o w eekl ys peec h ther apy appoi ntm ent s . T he par ent s t es t i fi ed thati f R ami r ez i s r emoved, the chi l dr en w oul d not r el ocat e t o G uat emal a, as the mother( w ho i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of H ondur as ) w oul d not b e ab le to f

in dw o rka n dth e d a u g h terw o u ldn o t b e ab le to re c e iv e sp e e c h th e rap yin G uat emal a. T he I Jcons i der ed the fa m i l y ’ s ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng the daught er ’ s s peec h di s or der , butfound thatR ami r ez’ s r emoval w oul d notcons t i tut e exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ualhar ds hi p t o the tw o chi l dr en. T he I Jdeni ed R ami r ez’ s appl i cat i on for canc el l at i on of r emoval and or der ed hi m r emoved t o G uat emal a. R ami r ez di d notappea l to th e B IA . R a th e r, th ro u g h n e w c o u n s e l, R a m ir e z m o v e dth e IJ to re c o n s id e r h is c a s e .3

I n h i s mo t i o n , Ra mi r e z s u b mi tt e dn e w e v i d e n c e o f h i s d a u g h t e r ’ s s p e e c h d i s o r d e r . He al s o ar gued thatthe w i thdr aw al of hi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as notan i nform ed dec i s i on, as hi s pr evi ous att orneyand the I Jfai l ed t o advi s e hi m thathe coul d pur s ue both the p e tit io n s f

o r a sy lu m a n dh is a p p lica tio n f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. T he I Jdeni ed R ami r ez’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der , fi ndi ng thathe fa i l ed t o s peci fy erro rs of fa ct or law in the p ri o r de cisi o n . T h e IJ f o u n dthat the re co rd d id n o t sup p o rt R ami r ez’ s as s ert i on thathi s choi ce t o w i thdr aw hi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as notknow i ng an dv o lun tary . R am ir ez ap p ea led, an din an o rde r da ted O ctob er 2 , 2 0 0 9 , the B IA d is m is s e dR a m ir e z ’s ap p e a l, a g re e in g w ith th e IJ ’s re a s o n in g f o r d e n y in g re c o n s id e ra tio n . T r eat i ng the addi t i onal evi dence as a mot i on t o r eopen, s ee 8 C. F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 3) , the B I A decl i ned t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs , concludi ng thatthe s ubm i tt ed evi dence w as not new orm at er i al and di d nots upporta conc l us i on of exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual h a r d s h i p . Ra mi r e z f

i l e da t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W e re v ie w th e B IA ’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re c o n s id e r o r r e o p e n f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See IN S v. D oherty , 502 U . S. 314, 323 ( 1992) ; B or ges v. G onzal es , 402 F. 3d 398, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s ent i t l ed t o “br oad def er ence . ” Ezeagw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 409 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T hus , i n or dert o s ucce ed on the pet i t i on for re v iew , R a m ire z m u st s h o w th a t th e B IA ’s d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n w a s a rb itrary , irratio n a l,W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the I J ’ s conclus i on thatthe daughe r ’ s tr eatm ent 1 w o u ldn o t b e in terru p ted b yh e r f a th e r’s re m o v a l. S e e M e n d e z -M o ra n c h e l v . A sh c ro f t, 3 3 8 F .3 d1 7 6 , 1 7 9 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e “ h a rd sh ip d e term in a tio n ” is d iscreti o n aryan d , ac co rdin g ly , this C o u rtlack s jurisdicti o n to rev iew it). 4 o r c o n tr a ry to la w . S e e T ip u v . IN S , 2 0 F .3 d5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (3 dC ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). III . W e conc l ude thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng R ami r ez’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der . R ami r ez ar gues thatthe B I A err ed byr efus i ng t o cons i derthe addi t i onal e v id e n c e su b m itt e dw ith h is m o tio n to re c o n sid e r. A m o tio n to re c o n sid e r is b a se dso lely o n e rr o rs o f

f a c t o r l a w in a p ri o r d e c is io n a n dis n o t to b e s u p p o rt e dw ith n e w e v id e n c e . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (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 upport ed byaff

i davi t s orotherevi dent i arym at er i al . T hatnew evi dence m us tbe mat er i al and have been una vai l abl e atthe form erhear i ng. I d. R ami r ez ar gues thatthe evi dence su b m itted — p sy ch iatri c e v alua ti o n s o f h is ch il d ren — w as n ew an dm aterial . H o w ev er, s i nce the I Jhad pr evi ous l yfound thatR ami r ez’ s daught erhad a s peec h di s or derbutthat hertr eatm entw oul d notbe af fec t ed w i th herfather ’ s abs ence , thi s new evi dence w as im m aterial o n the issu e o f e x ce p ti o n al an dex tr em elyu n u su al ha rdsh ip. T h u s, the B IA 1 di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs bas ed on the evi dence s u b m itte d . R a m ire z a lso a rg u e s th a t h e w a s d e p riv e do f d u e p ro c e ss b e c a u se th e IJ f a iled to5

advi s e hi m of hi s r i ghtt o pur s ue both an as y l um cl ai m and an appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on o f re m o v a l. In th e im m ig ra tio n c o n tex t, du e p ro c e ss e n tit les a n a lien to “ a f u ll an df a ir h e a ri n g a n da re a s o n ab le o p p o rtu n ity to p re s e n t e v id e n c e .” R o m a n is h yn v . A tt’ yG e n ., 455 F. 3d 175, 185 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he r ecor d r evea l s no vi ol at i on of due pr oces s . See K han v. A tt ’ yG en. , 448 F. 3d 226, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A ta pr ocee di ng i n N ovember 2006, the I Jt ol d R ami r ez thati tw as fi ne forhi m t o pr ocee d w i th both a cl ai m foras y l um and a r eques tforcanc el l at i on of r emoval . ( A . R . 131. ) A ta l at erpr ocee di ng i n O ct ober 2007, the I Jr eques t ed R ami r ez’ s couns el t o confi rm thathi s deci s i on t o w i thdr aw the claim s fo r asy lum an dw ith h o lding o f re m o v al w as k n o w ing an dv o lun tary . (A . R . 1 3 5 . ) R ami r ez t es t i fi ed thathe w i s hed t o w i thdr aw thes e cl ai m s , thathe w as s at i s fi ed w i th the advi ce of hi s att orney , and thathe di d nothave anyques t i ons r egar di ng the w i thdr aw al of the cl ai m s . ( A . R . 136- 37. ) A ft erboth att orney s t es t i fi ed thattheyw er e s at i s fi ed thatthe wi th d r a wa l wa s k n o wi n g a n di n f o rme d , th e I Jd e e me dth e ap p l i c a t i o n s wi th d r a wn . ( A. R. 1 3 7 .) F o r th e s e re a s o n s , w e re je c t R a m ir e z ’s d u e p ro c e s s c la im . F o rth e ab o v e r e a s o n s , 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.