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 5-18-2005 

# Zhe ng 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 . 04-2710

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 nova . 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 nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Zhe n g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1165. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/11651 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. 04- 2710

______________ XI U HUA Z HE NG, Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N TI ED STA TES, R es pondent

____________ ON P E T I T I ON F OR RE VI E W F RO M AN OR DE R O F THE B OA RD OF I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS

( B oar d N o. A 73- 169- 175)

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

M ay4, 2005 B efore: M cK E E , V A N A N T W E R P E N and W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed M ay18, 2005)

____________ OP I NI ON W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

Pet i t i oneri s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na w ho arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es w ith o u t in sp e c tio n in 1 9 9 3 . O n O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 3 , the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls2

deni ed the pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s foras y l um , vi ol at i ons of the C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, and w i t hhol di ng of deport at i on. I n addi t i on, t he B I A deni ed a r emand foradj us t m entof statu s b ase d o n an em p loy er’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r a v isa fo r pe ti ti o n er.

O n J une 1, 2004, t he B I A deni ed mot i ons t o r eopen a nd r econs i dert he O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 3 d e c is io n . P e titio n e r h a s a p p e a le d o n ly th e J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r.

T h e p eti ti o n er’s b ri ef

arg u es th e m erit s o f h is case u n d erly ing the B IA ’s or derof O ct ober3, 2003. H ow ever , a pet i t i on forr evi ew of thator ders houl d have be en fi l ed i n t hi s C our tw i t hi n thi r t yday s . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) ; s ee a l s o St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386 ( 1995) . Pet i t i onerdoes notdi s cus s t hati s s ue buts i m pl yar gues as i f the O ct ober 3, 2003 or derw er e ati s s ue; i ti s not . T he ques t i on befor e us i s w hethert he B I A abus ed it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing the m o ti o n s to reo p en an d rec o n side r.

T he B oar d has cons i der abl e di s cr et i on i n deci di ng w hethert o r eopen. H er e, pet i t i onerpr es ent ed hi s empl oy er ’ s appl i cat i on fora vi s a bas ed on empl oym ent . T he B oar d w as j us t i fi ed i n notr el y i ng on t hatdocument at i on beca us e the r eques tforan empl oym ent - bas ed vi s a i s depende nton m eet i ng a quot a. T he l i kel i hood of the appl i cat i on bei ng appr oved w as farfr om cert ai n. I n addi t i on, t he Servi ce oppos ed the m o tio n to re o p e n .

P e t i t i o n e rc h a l l e n g e s t h e I J ’ s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t yd e t e r mi n a t i o n , b u twe concl ude thatcont ent i on l acks m er i t . W e have hel d t hatan adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng m aynotbe bas ed on col l at er al i ncons i s t enci es . T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 2d 180,3

187 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I n t hi s cas e, how ever , t he I J ’ s adver s e fi ndi ng w as bas ed on a number o f m a jo r in c o n sis ten c ies th a t w e re d e taile d in h is o p in io n . T h e se in c o n sis ten c ies w e n t to t he hea r tof the pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on. T he B oar d w as t hus w el l w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on w h e n it d e te rm in e d th a t th e p e titio n e r d id n o t s u p p o rt h is c la im f o r r e o p e n in g . W e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on her e. N ori s t her e new evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o j us t i fygr ant i ng t he mot i on t o r econs i der . Pet i t i onerm us ts how an abus e of di s cr et i on. M er el yr e- ar gui ng t he mer i t s of the or i gi nal or derof O ct ober3, 2003 does not s a tis f yh is b u rd e n . A c c o rd in g ly, th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .