2009 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 Third C ircuit 12-17-2009 

# S ime r jeet S ingh v . Atty Gen U SA P re c e de nt i al or Non-P re c e de nt i al : Non-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t No . 08-2662

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C ircuit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S ime rj e e t S ingh v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 91. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009/911 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. 08- 2662

___________ S I M E RJ E E T S I NGH,

Pet i t i oner vs. 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 70- 703- 005) Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

D ece m ber16, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef Judge, SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : D ece m ber17, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

Pet i t i onerSi m er

j eetSi ngh, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a, s eeks r evi ew of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “ B IA ” ) d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s . Be c a u s e we c o n c l u d e th a tth e BI A d i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g th a tmo t i o n , weP u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a (c )(4 )(B ), th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l h a s d isc re tio n to 1 r emove the condi t i onal bas i s of perm anentr es i dents t atus foran al i en w ho, al though di vor ced f

r om the U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen s pous e, neverthel es s demonstr at es thatthe m arr i age w as ent er ed i nt o i n good fai th. 2 wi l l d e n yS i n g h ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. S in g h e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s w ith o u t in sp e c tio n in D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 2 . H is sta tu s w a s e v e n tu a llya d ju ste d to th a t o f

a c o n d iti o n a l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t f o llo w in g h is m arr i age t o H att i e Pender , a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. W hen the tw o di vor ced, the G overnm entt erm i nat ed Si ngh’ s condi t i onal perm anentr es i dents t atus and i ni t i at ed re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. A t a h e a rin g b e f o re th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ), S in g h so u g h t to b lo c k h is re m o v a l b ya rg u in g th a t h e w a s e n title d to re lie f u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1186a( c) ( 4) ( B ) . I n February2006, the I J deni ed the appl i cat i on, fi ndi ng thatSi ngh had 1

“ f a iled to sh o w b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t h is m a rria g e w a s e n ter e d in to in good fai th and notforthe purpos e of obt ai ni ng an I m m i gr at i on benef i t . ” O n N ovember 13, 2007, the B I A uphel d the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs and di s m i s s ed the appe al . O n D ece m ber6, 2007, Si ngh fi l ed a mot i on t o r emand, cl ai m i ng thathi s daught er ’ s ant i ci pat ed natur al i zat i on ent i t l ed hi m t o an adj us tm entof s t atus . T he B I A deni ed the mot i on on F e b ru a ry1 , 2 0 0 8 , fin d in g th a t sin c e th e d a u g h ter ’s n a tu ra liza tio n p ro c e ss w a s s til l p e n d in g , “a n yp o ten tial c laim to a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s is p re m a tu re , an d a t b e st, s pecul at i ve. ”S i ng h d oes no tadd res s this partof the B IA ’s decis i on i n h i s bri ef on app eal . A s a 2 r es ul t , anyi s s ues r el at i ng ther et o ar e dee m ed w ai ved. See C hen v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d 2 2 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 3

S in g h f iled a m o tio n to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s o n F e b ru a ry1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , p rim a rily cl ai m i ng thathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance fr om hi s pr evi ous couns el w ho di d not i n f o rm h i m th a th e c o u l d o b t a i n a h a r d s h i p wa i v e ru n d e r§ 1 1 8 6 a ( c ) ( 4 ) ( A) ( “ e x tr e me har ds hi p w oul d r es ul ti f s uch al i en i s r emoved”) . O n M ay15, 2008, the B I A deni ed the m o tio n , co n c lu d in g th a t ite x c e e d e d th e n u m e ric a l an d tim e lim itatio n s f o r m o tio n s to re o p e n u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(2 ). T h e B IA d e ter m in e d th a t ev e n if S in g h c o u ld o v erc o m e the m o ti o n ’s pro ce d u ral de ficien cies, an d p resu m ing that h is prior co u n sel’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

icie n t, S in g h ’s c laim o f “ e x tre m e h a rd sh ip ” lac k e d th e re q u isite m er i tt o demonstr at e anypr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng fr om couns el ’ s defi ci entper form ance . T he B I A al s o det erm i ned that , i ns ofaras Si ngh had r ai s ed a c l ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance b a se d o n c o u n se l’s f

a ilu re to a d v ise h im o f

h is a b ili tyto f

ile a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew w ith th is C o u rt, S in g h h a d “ f

a iled to su b sta n tiallyc o m p lyw ith th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts p ro v id e d in M a tter o f

L o z a d a [ , 1 9 I. & N . D e c . 6 3 7 (B IA 1 9 8 8 )] a s it re late s to th is cl ai m . ” Si ngh appea l ed, and the G overnm entm oved t o di s m i s s hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew

2 f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of the B I A under8 U . S. C . §T h e G o v ern m en t ci tes t o U ren a-T av are z v . A sh cro ft, 3 6 7 F . 3 d 1 5 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), 3 and C os pi t o v. A tt ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 166 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , forthe pr opos i t i on thatw e l ack ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e d is c re tio n a ry d e n ia l o f w a iv e rs u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a (c )( 4 ). B u t w e a re n o t r ev iew ing the d en ial o f a d iscreti o n aryh ard sh ip w aive r; instead , w e a re r evi ew i ng the B I A ’ s deni al of Si ngh’ s m ot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on the al l eged i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

h is p rio r c o u n se l. T h e G o v e rn m e n t, i n a d v e rte n tlyp e rh a p s, c o n c e d e s th is d istin c tio n . (G o v ’t B r. at 1 0 ) (“ th e B o a rd d id n o t ad ju d ica te th e h a rd sh ip w a iv e r[ ,] it a d ju d ica ted a m o tio n to re o p e n ” ). M o re o v e r, C o sp ito , an d e a c h o f th e c a se s w e c ited to ther ei n, i nvol ved an a l i en’ s att emptatdi r ectj udi ci al r evi ew of the deni al of a di s cr et i onaryw ai ver , notr evi ew of the deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen. T hus , the ca s es ci t ed to b ythe G o v ern m en t are ea sil yd ist ing u isha b le, an d w e d en yit s m o ti o n to d ism iss. In a d d iti o n , S in g h ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e B IA lac k e d ju risd ictio n to a d ju d ica te th e h a rd sh ip w ai verappl i cat i on fai l s forthe r eas ons j us tdi s cus s ed. See al s o Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at170. 4 1252( a) . W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on. See B or ges 3 v. G onzal es , 402 F. 3d 398, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; s ee a l s o C ruz v. A tt orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , 452 F. 3d 240, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . U nderthi s s t andar d, w e mayr ever s e the B IA ’s d e c isio n o n lyif

it i s “ a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, orc o n tra ryto law .” S e v o ian v . A sh c ro f t, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e e x erc ise d e n o v o rev iew o f th e B IA ’s determ i nati on con cerni ng an u nd erl y i ng proced ural du e process cl ai m , such as a determ i nati on that an al i en h as fai l ed to com plyw i th the L ozad a requi rem ents t o est abli sh an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m . See Fadi ga v. A tt ’ yG en. , 488 F. 3d 142, 153 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

W hen a mot i on t o r eopen i s deni ed on pr i m a fa ci e gr ounds , w e r evi ew any fi ndi ngs of fa ctfors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at174. E ven i f the m o v a n t h a s m a d e o u t a p rim a f a c ie c a se , the B IA h a s d isc re tio n to d e n ya m o tio n to re o p e n if it i s p ro c e d u ra llyd e f

icie n t. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (a ). In g e n e ra l, m o tio n s to5

r eopen mustbe fi l ed w i thi n ni netyday s fr om the dat e “the fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on w as r ender ed, ” and onl yone s uch mot i on i s al l ow ed. 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . A m ot i on to re m a n d is e q u iv a len t to a m o tio n to re o p e n f o r § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(2 ) p u rp o se s w h e re it re q u e s ts th e re lie f

n o rm a lly so u g h t in a m o tio n to re o p e n . S e e M a tte r o f C o e lh o , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . 4 6 4 , 4 7 1 (B IA 1 9 9 2 ). III .

P u rsua n t t o M att er o f C o elho , the B IA w as p erm itted to co n stru e S ing h ’s m o ti o n to rem an d as a m o ti o n to reo p en . S ee id. ( “the m o ti o n to rem an d is i n the n ature of a mot i on t o r eopen s i nce the r es pondentr eques t s addi t i onal pr ocee di ngs t o pr es ent evi dence . . . w hi ch w as notavai l abl e dur i ng the i ni t i al pr ocee di ngs ”) . A s a r es ul t , the B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng thatSi ngh’ s s ubs equentm ot i on t o r eopen w as num ber - barr ed under8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . N ordi d i tabus e i t s di s cr et i on t o the ext enti tdeni ed the mot i on t o r eopen on pr i m a fa ci e gr ounds . T he B I A r i ght l yconcl uded th a t S in g h ’s in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim , b a se d o n th e a lleg e d f a ilu re o f p rio r c o u n se l to a p p rise S in g h o f

h is e lig ib ili tyf

o r a § 1 1 8 6 a (c )(4 )(A ) h a rd sh ip w a iv e r, lac k e d m e rit becaus e Si ngh had notdemonstr at ed thathe w as pr ej udi ced bynothavi ng appl i ed forthat w a iv e r. T o th a t en d , w e f in d n o e rro r in th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t S in g h ’s “ sim p ly s t at i ng thathe has a l aw ful perm anentr es i dentdaught erand U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen gr andchi l dr en, thathe i s a mem berof a Si kh as s oci at i on, thathe i s a bus i nes s ow ner , and that h e is l ea rnin g E n g li sh , w ith o u t fu rth er e x p lana ti o n o f w h at, if an y , h ard sh ips a rei nvol ved, does nots how a pr i m a fa ci e cl ai m of extr eme har ds hi p. ” A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .

6