2004 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 11-3-2004 

# Lop e z D e Reyes 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 . 02-4431

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . 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
" L opez D e Reye s v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 149. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/149NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 02-4431
VALEN TINA ANT ONIA LOPEZ DE REY ES, Petitioner

v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL OF THE U NITED STATES, Respondent

On Petiti on for Review of Order of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (No. A44-656-401)
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 25, 2004 Be for e: N YG AA RD , M cK EE , and CH ER TO FF , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: November 3, 2004)

___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________2

NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge
. Valenti na Antonia Lopez De Reyes , a ci tize n of the Dominican Republ ic, petitions for review of the B IA’s dec ision, which a ffirmed th e IJ withou t opinion. Th e issue befo re us is w hethe r it was appr opriate for the BIA to aff irm the IJ’s de cision w ithout o pinion in this case. We willdeny De Reye s’ pet iti on. I. Because the fac ts ar e known to the parties , we revie w them only briefl y. De Reyes and her daught er ente red the Unit ed State s as condi tionalpermanent r esident s, on t he basis of her marri age to Jos e Lopez, a Unit ed State s cit izen. Amid personal and medi cal troubl es, Lopez l eft De Reyes , and De Reyes obtaine d a divorce in the Domini can Republic. After the two were divorce d, De Reyes a pplied to have her condi tionalstat us
rem ove d pu rsua nt to 8 U .S.C . § 11 86a (c)(4 )(B ). See 8 U. S. C. § 11 86a (c )( 4) (B) (An imm igrant m ay file for a hard ship w aiver, w hereb y the Atto rney G enera l may rem ove h is cond itional sta tus de spite the fact th at his U nited S tates citize n spo use d oes n ot jointly petition, i f “the qual ify ing marri age was enter ed into in good faith by t he ali en spouse, but the qual ify ing marri age has been t erminat ed (other than through the deat

h of the spou se).”). T he IJ d enied her ap plication after c onclu ding that D e Re yes wa s not c redible and had fail ed to demonstrate that (1) she and her for mer husband ever ha d a bona fide3

marita l rel ations hip, and (2) she e ntered into the mar riage in good faith. As a result of the denialof De Reyes’ appl icat ion, s he and her daught er were order ed deporte d. De Reyes appeal ed the IJ ’s deci sion t o the BIA, i ntroducing new evidence that was not av ailable a t the time of the hearin g before the IJ, includ ing the coup le’s lease and th eir joint bank stat ement. De Reye s also argued that her counselbefore the IJ was ine ffecti ve. The BIA nonetheless affirmed t he decisi on of the IJ

without opinion. De Rey es fil ed the petiti on for review that is now before us. II. De Reyes chal lenges t

he BIA’s use of i ts summary affirmance procedure i n her
ca se . S he al le ge s t

ha t ( 1) be caus e s he pr es en te d ne w ev id en ce an d a rg ume nt s t o the BIA , the B oard ’s use o f sum mary affirma nce p roced ures w as inap prop riate, and (2) the criteria fo r us i ng summar yaf

fi r ma nc e, fo un d at 8 C
. F. R. § 1 00 3. 1( e) ( 4) ( i ) , we r e n ot me t . We address e ach of thes e arguments in turn. De Re y es fi rs t a ss erts th at be caus e s he pr es en te d ne w ev id en ce to th e BI A, summary aff

irmance was i nappropri ate. The BIA, however, coul d not consi der new evidence. The amended regulations that appl y t o De Reyes’ cas e mirror the feder al
cou rt’s ru les p roh ibitin g pr ese ntati on o f ne w e vid enc e no t raise d be for e the low er co urt. See 8 C .F.R. § 100 3.1(d )(3)(IV ) (“Ex cept for takin g adm inistrative notice of co mm only kno wn facts s uch a s curre nt eve nts or th e con tents of offic ial doc um ents, the Bo ard w ill not eng age in fa ctfin din g in the c our se o f de cidin g ap pea ls.”).4

De Re yes als o ar gue s tha t the B IA erre d by n ot co nsid erin g he r ne w a rgu me nts. Though she does not i dentif y which arguments, in parti cular, were not addre ssed by the BIA, we presume she is referring to her ineffective ass ist ance of counselargument. Even so, it was entirely appropriate fo r the BIA to use the sum mary affirma nce proc edure wh ere little or n o evid ence supp orted th is new argu men t. Nex t, De Re yes contends that the B IA sho uld not hav e used the s umm ary aff irma nce pro ced ure bec aus e the req uire me nts for d oin g so we re n ot m et. See 8 C .F.R . § 100 3.1(e)( 4)(i)(A )-(B). T his C ourt h as jurisd iction to review the B IA’s decisio n to ap ply the su mm ary affirm ance proc edur e, and we conc lude th at the re quirem ents w ere m et in the in stan t cas e. Sm irko v. A shcro ft , 200 4 W L 2 381 946 , at *1 (3d Cir . Oc t. 26 , 200 4). The Board member concurred wit h the res ult of t

he IJ' s decis ion, t

he case i s contr olled by exist ing prece dent and di d not involve the appl icat ion of such pr ecedent t o a novel fact ual sit uation, and the appealdid not pr esent any of the ci rcumstance s speci fied i n the reg ulati on for a ssig nm ent to a thr ee-m em ber pan el. See 8 C.F.R . § 1003.1(e )(4)-(6). III. For th e r ea so ns se t f

orth , w e wi llde ny

De Re y es ’ p et itio n f

orre vi ew.