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 6-7-2005 

# G un a wan v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3091

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" G un a wa n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1059. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1059Attorney General Albe rto Gonzales has be en substituted for for mer Attorney

General * J ohn Ashcrof

t, the orig inal responde nt in this case , pursuant to Fe d. R. App. P. 43(c). 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 os . 04- 3091/ 04- 3092

__________ S A N T O S O G U N A W A N , D E Y S K E O R O H , a nd D EB O RA TR I V EN A SA N TO SO P et i t i on ers , vs. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, * A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R e sp o n d e n t.

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof R emoval f ro m th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce E xecut i ve O ffi ce f

orI m m i gr at i on R evi ew ( B I A N os . A 96- 264- 283/ A 96- 264- 284/ A 96- 264- 285)

__________ A r gued: T hur s day , M ay26, 2005

___________ B efor e: SC I R I C A , A L I T O , and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 7, 2005)

__________ OP I NI ON

__________As of March 2003, “theI NS cea sed to existas an independent ag ency within the United 1 States Depa

rtment of Just ice [‘DOJ’] and its functions were tra nsfer red to the newly

formed United States Depa

rtment of Homela

nd Security .” Le ia v. A sh c ro ft , 393 F.3d 427, 430 n.4 ( 3d Cir. 2005). The B IA re mains within the DOJ
. Kna pik v . A sh c ro ft , 384 F.3d 84, 86 n.2 ( 3d Cir. 20 04 ) ( c iti ngHo me land

Se c urity Ac t of 20 02 , Pu b. L . N o. 10 7- 29 6, §§ 44 1, 45 1, 47 1, 11 6 St at. 2135 (2002))
. -2- G ar t h, C i r cui tJ udge: S an toso G u n aw an , D ey sk e O roh , an d D eb o ra T ri v en a S an toso , all o f w h o m are nat i ves and ci t i zens of t he R epubl i c of I ndones i a, pet i t i on t hi s C our tt o r evi ew t he J une 22, 2004 deci s i on of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”)
. T hatdeci s i on deni ed t hei rm ot i on t o r eopen a n in a b se n tia r emoval or deri s s ued byt he I m m i gr at i on J udge (“ IJ” ) o n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 3 . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f th e m o tio n to
r e o p e n u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 . We wi l l d e n yt h e P e t i t i o n f o rRe v i e w. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he bene fi tof the part i es w ho ar e w el l acqua i nt ed
w i t h the fact s and p rocedu ral po sture of the presentact i on , w e w i l l recoun ton l yt ho se
m at t er s m os tr el evantt o t he i s s ues befor e us . O n M ay12, 2003, t he I m m i gr at i on and N atural i zat i on S ervi ce (“I N S ”) com m enced rem ov al proceed i ng s agai nstS antoso 1 G u n aw an , h is w ife D ey sk e O roh , an d h is da u g h ter D eb o ra T ri v en a S an toso (he reina fter, “Pet i t i oner s ”) , char gi ng t hem w i t h r emovabi l i t yunderSect i on 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) , as non- i m m i gr ant s w ho had
re m a in e d in th e U n ited S tate s f o r a tim e lo n g e r th a n p e rm itt e d . T h e c h a rg in g d o c u m e n ts di r ect ed Pet i t i oner s t o appea rbefor e the U ni t ed St at es I m m i gr at i on C our ti n N ew ar k,Petitioners filed a motion to supplement the administrative re cord to includethese two 2 additional decla

rations. See note 5 inf

ra . -3- N ew J er s eyon J une 3, 2003 t o s how caus e w hyt heys houl d notbe r emoved fr om t he U nit ed S t at es. P et i t i on ers , ho w ever, fai l ed to app ear att he sche du l ed h eari ng . A s a
r es ul t , on J une 3, 2003, t he I J pr ocee ded i n abs ent i a, s ee 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( A ) , and
o rd e re d P e titio n e rs re m o v e d to In d o n e s ia
. I n J une 2003, Pet i t i oner s fi l ed a pr o s e mot i on t o r eopen thei rr emoval pr ocee di ngs , cont endi ng t hatt heyhad not i fi ed the i m m i gr at i on cour tof thei rchange of addr es s , excus i ng t hem from appear i ng fort hei rs chedul ed J une 3, 2003 hear i ng. O n J une 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , ap p a re n tlya f

ter o b tain in g c o u n se l, P e tit io n e rs m a iled a n a f f id a v it t o th e IJ in
su p p o rt o f

th e ir m o tio n to re o p e n . In th is a f f id a v it, S a n to so G u n a w a n d e c lar e d th a t, i n fai l i ng t o appea rfort he hea r i ng, he r el i ed on the fr audul entand err oneous advi ce of a no n-at t orney , w ho had t old hi m t hat the fil i ng of a c han ge o f add res s form w ou l d ex cuse hi m s el f and hi s fami l yfr om appea r i ng att he s chedul ed hea r i ng. T hi s non- at t or neyhad al l egedl yas s i s t ed G unaw an i n pr epar i ng hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, w hi ch al s o i ncl uded cl ai m s of as y l um on behal f of hi s w i fe a nd daught er . T he af fi davi t , how ever , m ent i oned
n o sp ec ifi c n am e, ad d ress o r an yo ther inf o rm ati o n co n ce rnin g this pe rson . P eti ti o n ers su b m itt e d n o o th e r re c o rd e v id e n c e b e sid e s th e a f f id a v it. I n t hei rappel l at e br i efs t o t hi s C our t , and i n t w o s uppl ement al decl ar at i ons s ubm i t t ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al , Pet i t i oner s r el at e the fol l ow i ng s t or y , pr ovi di ng 2
a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i ra l l e g e d r e l i a n c e o n t h e a d v i c e o f t h i s n o n - a t t o r n e y.-4-

U pon deci di ng t o appl yforas y l um , G unaw an s oughtt he hel p of J onathan Tsao, a nonat t or neyw ho s peci al i zed i n t he pr epar at i on of as y l um appl i cat i ons . G unaw an knew t hat T s ao w as nota l i cens ed att or ney , and Tsao ne verm ade a nycl ai m s t o t he contr ary . T s ao a ss iste d in tra n sla tio n s a n d th e a sy lu m in ter v iew p ro c e ss , ch a rg in g P e tit io n e rs r o u g h ly $ 1 5 0 0 fo r his serv ices. U p o n rec eivin g the N o ti ce to A p p ea r, G u n aw an so u g h t T sao ’s advi ce, w ho al l egedl yt ol d G unaw an thathe coul d fi l e a c hange of addr es s for m w i t h t he N ew ar k C our t . T hatfi l i ng, T s ao expl ai ned, w oul d excus e them from appear i ng fort he J u n e 3 , 2 0 0 3 h e a ri n g , in a s m u c h a s th e f a m ily n o w liv e d in F lu s h in g , N e w Y o rk
. G unaw an r el i ed on thes e as s ur ance s , and thus nei t herhe norhi s fami l yappea r ed att he hear i ng. Pur s uantt o T s ao’ s di r ect i ons , he w ai t ed fora not i ce f r om t he N ew Y or k- bas ed im m ig ra tio n c o u rt. W hen the I J i n N ew ar k i s s ued the in a b se n tia r emoval or der , G unaw an cont act ed T s ao and ther eaf

t erobt ai ned hi s as s i s t ance i n dr aft i ng a pr o s e mot i on t o r eopen, w hi ch expl ai ned thathe mi s t akenl ybel i eved thathe di d notneed t o at t end the hea r i ng aft er f ili n g th e c h a n g e o f

a d d re ss f

o rm . T sa o a g a in in f

o rm e d G u n a w a n th a t h e n e e d e d o n lyto
w ai tfort he not i ce f

r om t he courti n N ew Y or k. H ear i ng not hi ng fur t herfr om t he N ew Y o rk c o u rt , G u n aw an ev en tuallyb ec am e su sp ici o u s an d su b seq u en tl yreturn ed to T sao ’s
o f f ic e . H e th e re a f

te r l e a rn e d th a t T s a o h a d le f t f o r C h in a d u e to b u s in e s s p ro b le m s . P e tit io n e rs r e tain e d c o u n se l, w h o f iled th e a f

f id a v it w ith th e im m ig ra tio n c o u rt, i ndi cat i ng t hatr el i ance on unauthor i zed l egal advi ce e xcus ed thei rfai l ur e t o appea r . T he-5-

I J deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen on J ul y18, 2003, fi ndi ng t hatPet i t i oner s r ece i ved adequa t e not i ce of

t he hea r i ng dat e and f

ai l ed t o es t abl i s h exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s for th e irf a ilu re to a p p e a r. See 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( C ) ( i ) ( pr ovi di ng t hatan in a b se n tia
r emoval or derm aybe r es ci nded “i f the al i en demonstr at es t hatt he fa i l ur e t o appea rw as b e c a u s e o f

e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” ). Pet i t i oner s t her eaf

t erappea l ed t o t he B I A . T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the d e c is io n o f

th e IJ . See M

at t erof B ur bano , 20 I . & N . D ec. 872, 874 ( B I A 1994) ( not i ng t h a ta d o p t i o n o ra f

f i r m a n c e o f

a d e c i s i o n o f

a n I J , i n w h o l e o ri n p a r t , i s “ s i m p l y a st at em ent that the B oard’s con cl usi on s upo n revi ew of the recor d co i ncide w i t h those
w h ich th e im m igrati o n jud g e a rt iculated in h is or h er d ec isi o n ”). I n p arti cu lar, the B IA found i ns uffi ci entevi dence of fr aud, t he onl yr ecor d evi dence bei ng t he one s el f- s er vi ng aff i davi t . T he B I A fur t herfound, as a mat t erof l aw , t hatPet i t i oner s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a cl ai m of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance pur s uantt o t he es t abl i s hed pr ocedur es s etfor t h i n M at t er of Lozada , 1 9 I.& N . D e c . 6 3 7 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ), a ff’d , 8 5 7 F .2 d 1 0 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II. W e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng Pet i t i oner s ’ m ot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of d is c re tio n . S e e IN

S v . D o h e rty , 502 U . S. 314, 323 ( 1992)
. U ndert he abus e of di s cr et i on s t a n d a r d , t h e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n “ w i l l n o tb e d i s tu rb e d u n l e s s [ i ti s ] f o u n d t o b e a rb i t r a r y, i r r at i onal orcontr aryt o l aw . ” T i p u v . I NS , 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t at i onsTo this end, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (C) provides that such an order may be re scinded 3 “upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of

the orde r of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failureto appea r wa s beca

use of e x ceptional c ircumstance s.” “Exceptional circ umstances”arecirc umstances beyond the control of thealien such a s the serious illness of the a lie n o r s e ri ou s il lne ss o r d e ath o f t hesp ou se , c hil d o r p arent o f t hea lien, but do no t in c lud e le ss compellingcirc umstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e )(1)
. -6- om i t t ed)
. I n rul i ng on ques t i ons of l aw , w e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s l egal concl us i ons de novo. Sm rik o v . A sh c ro

ft , 387 F. 3d 279, 282 ( 3d C i r . 2004)
. W e r evi ew fac tual det er m i nat i ons undera “s ubs t ant i al evi dence ” s t andar d, w hi ch r equi r es us t o t r eatfi ndi ngs of fa ctas “conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he
c o n tra ry .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); see al so A m b a rts o u m ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F. 3d 85, 89 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). I n addi t i on, t he s cope of ourr evi ew of a r emoval or derent er ed i n abs ent i a is l i m i t ed by8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( D ) t o: ( 1) the val i di t yof the not i ce pr ovi ded t o t he al i en, ( 2) t he r eas ons fort he al i en’ s notat t endi ng t he pr ocee di ng, and ( 3) w hetherornot th e a lien is re m o v a b le. T h e f irst a n d th ird iss u e s a re n o t co n tes ted in th is a p p e a l, confi ni ng ourr evi ew t o t he r eas ons forPet i t i oner s ’ fai l ur e t o appea ratt he r emoval hear i ng. 3 P e tit io n e rs e ss e n tiallyc laim in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l, co n ten d in g th a t th e ir f a ilu re to a p p e a r re su lted f ro m th e f ra u d u len t ad v ice o f

a n o n -a tto rn e y . A th re sh o ld q u e stio n h e re , h o w e v e r, is a p u re lyf a c tu a l o n e : w h e th e r P e tit io n e rs m a d e a n a d e q u a te sh o w in g o f

f ra u d to th e B IA . C o n c lu d in g , as w e d o , tha t th e B IA c o m m itt e d n o e rro r in fi ndi ng t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence of fr aud, w e fi nd i tunnece s s aryundert heThe pre cise leg al question hereis whether theineffe ctive assistanc e of a non-attorne y 4 (who doe s not purport to be an attorney ) is an exceptional circumstancejustifying a n alien’s no na pp e ara nc eat hi s immigratio n h e aring . T heF ir st, Sixth, and Ni nth Circ uit s h avehe ld ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel to be an “ exceptional circ umstance.” See, e .g. , Asaba v. As hc ro ft , 3 77 F .3 d 9 , 1 1 n .4 (1 st C ir . 2 00 4) ; Denk o v. I NS, 351 F.3d 717, 723- 25 (6th Cir. 2003); Re y es v . A sh c ro

ft , 358 F.3d 592, 596 ( 9th Cir. 2004). Whi le we ha ve indicate d a strong willingness to join them, we have not yet expressly done so. See B orges v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 398, 408 (3d Cir. 2005). Eve n assuming, though, that ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel constitutes “exceptional circumstances,”this appeal is twice- remove d from such a deter mination. First, it involves the ineff ective a ssistance of a non-attorney . Second, and perhaps more importantly , it also involves a non-attorney who never purpor

ted to be an attorney . Com pa re Lop e z v . I NS, 184 F.3d 1097, 1100 ( 9th Cir. 1999) (re cognizi ngineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel c la ims wh e reno n- lawye rs purp or te d to beatto rn e y s) . T heB IA did n ot a bu seits dis c re tio n in findingthat the alien’ s predica ment, which wa s not due to fac tors beyond his control, did not involve “exceptional circumstance s.” Consequently , we also need not discuss the proc edural requirements of Lozada , a no ther i ssu eraise d in

thi s a pp e a l. -7- fac t s of t hi s cas e t o cons i derw hethers uch fr aud, i f ade quat el ys how n, w oul d w arr ant
resc issi o n o f th e in a b sen ti a re m o v al ord er. 4 A fi nd i ng of f

raud i s a factual det erm i nati on t o b e m ade b yt he B IA i n the fi rs t in s ta n c e . B or

ges v. G onz al es , 402 F. 3d 398, 407 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. A ppl y i ng t he def er ent i al
su b stan ti al ev iden ce stan d ard to this de term ination , w e c an n o t saythat the re co rd evi dence compel s a contr aryconcl us i on her e. Pet i t i oner s s ubm i t t ed onl yone pi ece of evi dence t o t he B I A : a s el f- s er vi ng aff i davi tfr om Sant os o G unaw an. I n t hatdecl ar at i on, G unaw an admi t t ed thatbot h he and hi s w i fe a nd daught erw er e “or der ed t o appea ri n t he I m m i gr at i on C our ti n N ew ar k, N J , on J une 3, 2003. ” H e cl ai m ed thathe “w as t ol d byt he p e rso n w h o h e lp e d m e p re p a re m ya p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m th a t b e c a u se I h a d f iled th is change of addr es s for m w i t h t he courtI di d nothave t o appea rform yhear i ng i n N ew Je rse y .” A f

f id a v it o f S a n to so G u n a w a n ¶ 8 . H o w e v e r, as w e h a v e in d ica ted , h e f a iled toWe n otethat th eB IA m ight h avema dea dif ferent f a c tual de te rm inatio n h a d it 5 considere d the two supplemental de clarations from Santoso Gunawa n and Greg ory

Kuntashian, Esq. Unfortunately , Gunawa n failed to pre sent this evidencebefore the B IA, and instea d filed a motion to s upplement the administrative record on appeal. We init ially grante d that motion on May 5, 2005. We had assumed that wepossessed the power to admit this non-record evidenc e on appeal and re mand for c onsideration by the B IA. On May 24, 2005, however, the g overnme nt filed a motion to reconside r the Court’s May 5, 2005 order . Citi ngto Naj jar v . A sh c ro ft , 257 F.3d 1262, 1278 ( 11th Cir. 2001), the g overnme nt contends that this Court is without power to remand ca ses to the B IA for consideration of supplemental evidenc e. Upon f urther refle ction, and notwithstandingthe untimeliness of the g overnme nt’s motion, we believe that the g overnme nt is corre ct and therefore we f ind ourselves c ompelled to grant the g overnme nt’s motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1) ( stating that “the cour t may not order thetakingof additional evide nce under sec tion 23 47 (c ) o f T itl e28 .” ); se eals o Ge bre ma riav . A sh c ro ft 378 F.3d 734, 737 ( 8th Cir. 2004) (“ I IRIRA ’s proh ibi tio n o f re mandingfo r t hec on sid e ratio n o f additi on a l e vide nc epe rt a ins to non-re cord e videncethat is introduced in the first instancebefore a reviewingcourt.” ). We thus can do nothingmore than e x amine the record before the B IA, and a s we have indicate d above, the B IA’s fa ctual findingis supported by that rec ord. Acc ording ly , on rec onsideration, wewill grant the g overnme nt’s motion to reconsider the Court’s May

5, 2005 order , which had grante d Petitioners’ motion to suppl ement the administrative re cord. In doing so, w e will also withdraw our May 5, 2005 order

and deny Petitioners’ motion to suppl ement the record. -9- i dent i fyt he al l eged pe r s on byname. H e al s o fai l ed t o pr ovi de an a ddr es s oranyot her par t i cul ari nfor m at i on conce r ni ng t he per s on. L acki ng anys peci fi c det ai l s , and i n t he
a b s e n c e o f

a n yc o rr o b o ra tiv e e v id e n c e , th e d e c la ra tio n w a s le s s th a n p e rs u a s iv e . B eca us e Pet i t i oner s s ubm i t t ed no otherr ecor d evi dence , w e ca nnotconcl ude that t he B IA err ed in fi nd i ng i nsuff i ci ent evi den ce of

fraud. A s such, t he B IA did not abuse

5 its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to re o p e n . W e w i l l D E N Y t he Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on.