2008 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 5-9-2008 

# El H ef n a w y 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 . 06-2895

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_2008

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 2008 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 " El H ef n a w y v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1250. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1250NOT 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 . 06- 2895 and 07- 1167

____________ M OHAMED H . E L HE F NAWY, 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 fr om the O rd e rs o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 96- 203- 762) I m m i gr at i on J udge: M i chae l W . St r aus

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

M ar ch 4, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , F IS H E R a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ay9, 2008 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . M ohamed E l H efna w ys eeks r evi ew of tw o or der s of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n s to re o p e n h is c a se . E l H e f n a w ya ss e rts th a t h is2

m ot i ons t o r eopen s houl d be gr ant ed fortw o r eas ons : he i s m arr i ed t o a l egal r es i dent ali en w h o is ab o u t t o b e n atura li ze d , an d h e w as p rejud iced b yh is fo rm er a tt o rne y ’s in e f f e c tiv e re p re se n tatio n . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d ism iss th e p e tit io n s in p a rt a n d d e n yin p a rt. I . W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. T he l egal and fa ctual hi s t oryof thi s cas e i s convol ut ed. E l H efna w yent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i th a val i d vi s i t or ’ s vi s a i n 2001. H e s ubs equent l ybegan t o pur s ue r es i dencyt hr ough the empl oym ent - bas ed pr oces s . H i s empl oy erfi l ed a Labor C ert i fi cat i on on hi s behal f i n N ovember2001. I n O ct ober2004, the D epart m entof Labor r ej ect ed the C ert i fi cat i on beca us e i tw as i m pr oper l yfi l ed. E l H efna w ym arr i ed A bi rE l H addad, a l egal perm anentr es i dent , i n M ar ch 2003 dur i ng the pende ncyof hi s L aborC ert i fi cat i on. E l H efna w yw as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs i n M ay2003, and i n J une 2003, hi s w i fe f i l ed on hi s behal f an I - 130 Pet i t i on f o r A lien R e lativ e a n d a n I-4 8 5 a p p lica tio n to a d ju st h is s tatu s to P e rm a n e n t R e sid e n t. O n J une 30, 2005, the r emoval pr ocee di ngs cul m i nat ed i n E l H efna w ybei ng g r a n t e d a v o l u n t a r yd e p a r tu r e d a t e o f Oct o b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . On Oct o b e r1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , El H efna w y ’ s att orneyfi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on the fa ctthatE l H efna w y ’ s w i fe ha d3

ap p li ed fo r na turali za ti o n . T h e m o ti o n stat ed : “U p o n the a p p rov al of R esp o n d en t’ s w i fe’ s appl i cat i on, R es pondentw i l l have a n i m m edi at e vi s a numberavai l abl e and w i s hes to th e n f ile f o r A d ju s tm e n t o f

S ta tu s .” A p ro p e rl yf

ile d m o tio n w o u ld h a v e to lle d th e v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re d a te . Ka n ive ts v. G onz al es , 4 2 4 F .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). H o w e v e r, E l H e f n a w y ’s a tto rn e yf

a iled to p a yth e f ilin g f e e u n til N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 5 , a f te r t h e v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re d a te h a d p a s s e d . T her efor e, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen be caus e i thad bee n i m pr oper l yfi l ed. E l H efna w y , unaw ar e thathi s att orneyhad fa i l ed t o pr oper l yfi l e the m o tio n , re m a in e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T h u s , h e b e c a m e s u b je c t to s a n c tio n s . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c (d ) (p ro v id in g th a t an a lien f a ili n g to c o m p lyw ith h is v o lu n tar yd a te w ill b e ine li g ible fo r ad

justm en t of

statu s fo r t en y ea rs). E l H efna w yappea l ed the I J ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, and the B I A aff i r m ed the deni al . T he B I A s t at ed thatE l H efna w yw as notpr i m a fa ci e el i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t a tu s b e c a u s e h i s wi f

e was n o ty e ta U. S. c i t i z e n . Re p r e s e n t e d b yn e w co u n s e l , El H e f n a w yf iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew b yth is C o u rt. In a d d iti o n , in J u ly2 0 0 6 , E l H e f n a w yf iled a d isc ip lin a ryc o m p lain t ag a in st h is f o rm e r a tto rn e y . In S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 6 , E l H e f n a w yf iled a se c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n in acc or dance w i th Mat t erof Lozada , 19 I . & N . D ec. 637 ( B I A 1988) ( pr ovi di ng s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al r equi r ement s foral i ens t o obt ai n r el i ef f ori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ) . I n D ece m ber2006, the B I A deni ed the s econd mot i on t o r eopen,4

a g a i n s t a t i n g th a tE l He f n a wy ’ s wi f

e wa s n o ty e ta U. S . c i t i z e n a n d th e r e f o r e E l He f

n a wy had fa i l ed t o s how the r equi r ed pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef. E l H efna w yfi l ed a s econd pe t i t i on forr evi ew bythi s C our t . T he tw o pet i t i ons forr evi ew w er e cons ol i dat ed and are now befo re us. II. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ). In c a se s w h e re th e B IA a d o p ts the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es forthe I J ’ s deci s i on, w e r evi ew t he d e c is io n s o f

b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA . C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “[W ] e r evi ew the [BIA ’ s ] deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on. ” Fadiga v. A t t ’ y G en. , 488 F. 3d 142, 153 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng G u o v . A sh c ro ft , 386 F. 3d 556, 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 )). III . I n h i s s e c o n d mot i o n t o r e o p e n b e f o r e th e BI A an d i n h i s p e t i t i o n t o th i s Cou r t , El H efna w ygives tw o rat i on al es for grant i ng the rel i ef he request s. A . Fi r s t , E l H efna w yar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byfai l i ng t o cons i der th a t h e w ill s o o n b e c o m e e lig ib le f o r a v is a b a s e d o n h is w if e ’s p e n d in g n a tu ra liz a tio n . T o pr evai l on a mot i on t o r eopen, an al i en must“es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forthe r el i ef s ought . ” I.N

.S. v. D o h e rty , 5 0 2 U. S. 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Ea c h t i me th e BI A de n i e d El H efna w y ’ s m ot i ons t o r eopen, i tnot ed thathe w as notpr i m a fa ci e el i gi bl e foradj us t m ent5

of s t atus beca us e hi s w i fe w as nota U . S. ci t i zen. E l H efna w yadmi t s thatw hen he f i l ed h is m o tio n s to re o p e n , h is w if e w a s n o t a c iti z e n . T h e re f o re , h e w a s n o t p rim a f

a c ie e lig ib le f o r re lief , an d it w a s n o t an a b u se o f d isc re tio n f

o r th e B IA to d e n yh is m o tio n s to r eopen. T o the ext entthatE l H efna w ypet i t i ons forr evi ew on thi s bas i s , w e w i l l denyt he peti t i on s. B . S ec o n d , E l H ef

n aw yarg u es th at he sh o u ld b e a b le t o “re claim ” the v o lun tary d e p a rtu re d a te th a t w a s lo st w h e n h is f o rm e r a tto rn e yf

a iled to p ro p e rlyf

ile a m o tio n to r e o p e n . Bya r g u i n g th a th e s h o u l d b e a b l e t o “ r e c l a i m” h i s v o l u n t a ryd e p a r tu r e d a t e , El H ef n aw yis eff

ec ti v elyask ing fo r a reins tat em en t and ex tens ion o f h is vo lun taryd ep arture dat e. W e l ack the pow ert o pr ovi de thi s r el i ef. W e h a v e p re v io u slyc o n sid e re d th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re in s ta te a v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re d a te , a n d w e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t w e d o n o t. R eynos oL o p ez v . A sh c ro

ft , 369 F. 3d 275, 280- 82 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . Feder al r egul at i ons pr ovi de: A uthor i tyt o ext end the t i m e w i thi n w hi ch t o departvol unt ar i l ys peci fi ed i ni t i al l ybyan i m m i gr at i on j udge orthe B oar d i s onl yw i thi n the j ur i s di ct i on of the di s tr i ctdi r ect or , the D eputyE xecut i ve A s s oci at e C om m i s s i onerfor D et enti on and R em ov al , or the D i rect or of t he O ffi ce of Juven i l e A ffair s. A n i m m i gr at i on j udge orthe B oar d m ayr ei ns t at e vol unt arydepartur e i n a re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g th a t h a s b e e n re o p e n e d f o r a p u rp o se o th e r th a n so lely m aki ng an appl i cat i on forvol unt arydepartur e i f r eopeni ng w as gr ant ed pr i ort o the expi r at i on of the or i gi nal per i od of vol unt arydepartur e. 8 C . F. R . § 1240. 26( f) . T hus , i n R eynos o- Lopez , w e d e ter m in e d th a t “th e a u th o rityto r ei ns t at e orext end vol unt arydepartur e fa l l s s ol el yw i thi n the di s cr et i on of the A t t orney6

G e n e ra l an d h is d e leg a tes a t th e IN S . . . . [ T ]h e e x e c u tiv e b ra n c h , n o t th e ju d icia ry , is gi ven the s ol e author i tyt o det erm i ne w hen an a l i en mustdepart . ” 369 F. 3d at280. I n addi t i on, w e ar e s t atut or i l ydepr i ved of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “anyj udgm ent r egar di ng the gr ant i ng of r el i ef unde rs ect i on . . . 1229c [gove rni ng the gr ant i ng of v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re ].” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(i). S in c e E l H e f n a w ya sk e d th e B IA to r eopen the pr ocee di ng s o thathe coul d “r ecaptur e” hi s el i gi bi l i tyforvol unt arydepartur e, the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen i s a “j udgm entr egar di ng the gr ant i ng of r el i ef u n d e r se c tio n . . . 1 2 2 9 c ,” a n d w e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew it. B ec au se w e lac k the p o w er to rein stat e o r ex tend E l H ef n aw y ’s vo lun tary d ep arture d ate, w e n ee d n o t r ea ch h is argu m en t th at he is el igible f o r reli ef u n d er Lozada d u e t o h i s a t t o r n e y ’ s i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . 1 9 I . & N. Dec . a t6 3 7 . To th e e x t e n tth a tEl He f n a wyp e t i t i o n s f

o rr e i n s t a t e me n ta n d e x t e n s i o n o f h i s v o l u n t a ryd e p a r tu r e d a t e , we w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i ons forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill d ism iss E l H e f n a w y ’s p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew in p a rt a n d d e n yth e m in p a rt.