FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15974 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 28- 305- 829 R O S A I N E S N E I R A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju l y 21, 2008) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R o sa In es N ei ra p et i t i o n s fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ard o f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’Neira ’s son did not become a United States citizen untilNovember 2, 2007, at which 1 time the motion to reopen wa s pending . 2 de c i s i on de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n he rr e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs t o appl y f ors t a tus a d ju s tm e n t. I. N e ir a , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f C o lo m b ia , f

ile d a n ap p lic a tio n f

o ra s y lu m , w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , an d rel i ef u n d er th e U n i t ed N at i o n s C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt . T he I m m i gr a t i on J udge de ni e d N e i r a ’ s appl i c a t i ons f orr e l i e f butgr a nt e d he rr e que s tf or vol unt a ry de pa r tur e . N e i r a appe a l e d t o the B I A , w hi c h a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s or de ra nd di sm i ss ed her appeal on A ug ust3, 20 07 . T he B IA further ordere d thatN ei rahad si x ty d ays fro m th e d at e o f i t s o rd er t o d ep artfro m th e U n i t ed S t at es v o l u n t ari l y. O n O ct ob er1, 20 07 , j uston e daybefore her s i xty dayperi od for vol un t ary de pa r tur e w a s s e tt o e xpi r e , N e i r a f i l e d a m ot i on t o r e ope n he rr e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs so th at sh e c o u ldap p ly fo r s tatu s a d ju stm en t. T h at m o ti o n in d icated th at N eira ’s s o n w o u ld s o o n b e c o m e a n a tu r a liz e d c itiz e n , w h ic h w o u ld a llo w h im to th e n f ile a n I - 130 pe t i t i on f

ora l i e n r e l a t i ve s t a tus on N e i r a ’ s be ha l f a nd he rt o f

i l e a n I - 485 appl i ca t i on for a dj ustm ent . A tt ac hed t o N ei ra ’ s m ot i on t o reopen w er e: (1) a 1 do cum enti nd i ca t i ng thather s on ’ s app l i ca t i on for natural i za t i on had b ee n r e c om m e nde d f

orappr ova l ; ( 2) a n unf

i l e d a nd unda t e d I - 130 a l i e n r e l a t i ve pe t i t i on;3

a n d ( 3 ) a n u n f

ile d a n d u n d a te d I - 4 8 5 ap p lic a tio n to a d ju s t s ta tu s . T he B IA re

j ec t ed N ei ra ’ s m ot i on t o reopen o n O ct ob er3, 20 07 because her att orney had fai l ed t o fi l e the re qu i re d n ot i ce of entry . T he B oard di d, ho w ever , i nstructN ei rathatshe w ou l d b e perm i tt ed t o fi l e acorr ec t ed m ot i on w i thi n fi ft ee n d ay s. O n O cto b er9 , 2 0 0 7 th e B IA re ce iv ed th e c o rr ec ted m o ti o n fr o m N eira ’s att o rn ey. T he B IA deni ed the m ot i on t o reopen. T he B oard i ni t i al l y not ed that

“ [ w ] hi l e the D H S c orr e c t l y not e d tha t[ N e i r a ] w oul d be i ne l i gi bl e f ora dj us tm e nt f orove r s t a y i ng the pe r i od of vol unt a ry de pa r tur e , the de f e c tw a s c ur e d w i thi n the t i m e l i m i ts e ti n ournot i c e , a nd s he i s c ons e que nt l y notc ons i de r e d i ne l i gi bl e f or her f ai l ure t o d epartw i thi n the t i m e gra nt ed t o h erun der the vo l un t ary departure or de r . ” H ow e ve r , the B I A de t e rm i ne d tha tN e i r a w a s not“ pr i m a f a c i e e l i gi bl e f

or th e r e lie f s h e s e e k s ” b e c a u s e th e v is a p e titio n th a t h e rs o n w a s g o in g to r e p o r te d ly fi l e on h erbehal f had “ no tye tbeen adj ud i ca t ed. ” F urtherm ore, al tho ug h N ei rahad re l i ed on the B IA ’ s hol di ng i n In re V el ar de-P ac heco, 23 I. & N . D ec . 25 3 (B IA 2002) , the B oa r d di s t i ngui s he d tha tc a s e a s be i ng “ l i m i t e d t o c a s e s i nvol vi ng a dj us tm e ntba s e d on a m a rr i a ge . ” N e i r a t i m e l y pe t i t i one d thi s C our tf orr e vi e w of the B I A ’ s or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n. II.

“ W e r evi ew the B IA ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o reopen for abuse of di sc re t i on . ”4

M ont a no C i s ne r os v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 514 F . 3d 1224, 1226 ( 11th C i r . 2008) . O ur r e vi e w i s , the r e f

or e , “ l i m i t e d t o de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve di s c r e t i on a nd w he the rthe m a tt e rof e xe r c i s e ha s be e n a rbi tr a ry a nd c apr i c i ous . ” A bdi v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 430 F . 3d 1148, 1149 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “[ T ]h e B I A ’s f a ilu r e to f

o llo w its ow n p re ce dent s w i tho utprov i di ng a r ea soned exp l anat i on for doi ng so ca n c o n s titu te a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n .” M o n ta n o C is n e r o s , 5 1 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 6 . T he I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c tpr ovi de s the A tt orne y G e ne r a l w i th the d is c r e tio n to a d

ju s t th e s ta tu s o f

a n a lie n to th a t o f

a la w f u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t if: “( 1 ) th e a lie n m a k e s a n ap p lic a tio n f o rs u c h a d

ju s tm e n t, ( 2 ) th e a lie n is e lig ib le to r e c e i ve a n i m m i gr a ntvi s a a nd i s a dm i s s i bl e t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s f orpe rm a ne nt r e s id e n c e , a n d ( 3 ) a n im m ig r a n t v is a is im m e d ia te ly a v a ilab le to h im a t th e tim e h is appl i c a t i on i s f

i l e d. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1255( a ) . T he I N A f ur the rpr ovi de s tha t“ a ny c itiz e n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s c la im in g th a t a n a lie n is e n title d to . . . a n im m e d ia te re l at i ve st atus . . . m ayfi l e apet i t i on w i th the A tt orney G ener al for s uch c la s s if ic a tio n .” I d . § 1 1 5 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i) . T h e te rm “im m e d ia te r e la tiv e ” a s u s e d in thatprov i si on i ncl ud es “ chi l dren, spou se s, and p ar ent s of aci t i ze n o f the U ni t ed S ta te s .” I d . § 1 1 5 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i) . T he IN A al so prov i des a l i ens w i th n i nety day s f rom the dat e of afi nal a d m in is tr a tiv e o r d e rto f ile o n e m o tio n to r e o p e n , w h ic h “s h a ll s ta te th e n e w f a c ts5

tha tw i l l be pr ove n a ta he a r i ng t o be he l d i f the m ot i on i s gr a nt e d a nd s ha l l be supp ort ed by af

fi davi t s or other e vi dent i ary m at er i al . ” I d. § 1 22 9a(c )( 7)(B ). S uch a m ot i on “ s ha l l notbe gr a nt e d unl e s s i tappe a r s t o the [ B I A ] tha te vi de nc e s ought t o b e off er ed i s m at er i al and w as no tavai l abl e a nd coul d n othave been di sc ov er ed o rp r e s e n te d a t th e f

o rm e rh e a r in g .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 1 ) . W e ha ve not e d tha t“ [ m ] ot i ons t o r e ope n a r e di s f a vor e d, e s pe c i a l l y i n a r e m ova l pr oc e e di ng, ‘ w he r e , a s a ge ne r a l m a tt e r , e ve ry de l a y w or ks t o the advant age of the depo rt abl e a l i en w ho w i shes m er el y t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s . ’ ” A bdi , 430 F . 3d a t1149 ( quot i ng I N S v. D ohe r ty , 502 U . S . 314, 323, 112 S . C t . 719, 724–25 ( 1992) ) . T he m ova nt ’ s bur de n i s , the r e f or e , a he a vy one . A l i v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 3 F . 3d 80 4, 81 3 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). S he m ust“ pres ent [ ] e vi de nc e of

s uc h a na tur e tha tthe [ B I A ] i s s a t i s f i e d tha ti f

pr oc e e di ngs be f

or e the [ I J ] w e r e r e o p e n e d , w ith a ll a tte n d a n t d e la y s , th e n e w e v id e n c e o f f e r e d w o u ld l i ke l y c ha nge the r e s ul ti n the c a s e . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on o m itte d ) ( a lte r a tio n s in o r ig in a l) . T h e B I A d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g N e ir a ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n . A lth o u g h N e ir a s u b m itte d e v id e n c e o f h e rs o n ’s im p e n d in g n a tu r a liz a tio n in co n n ect i o n w i th h er m o t i o n t o reo p en , sh e p ro v i d ed n o ev i d en ce th ata rel at i v e v i sa pe t i t i on ha d be e n f

i l e d on he rbe ha l f

. I ns t e a d, s he of

f e r e d onl y a n unda t e d a nd unf i l e d I - 130 pe t i t i on a l ong w i th a n unda t e d a nd unf i l e d I - 485 appl i c a t i on f

or6

s t a tus a dj us tm e nt . U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , i tw a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on f

or the B I A t o c onc l ude tha tN e i r a w a s notpr i m a f a c i e e l i gi bl e f

ors t a tus a dj us tm e nt b e c a u s e s h e f

a ile d to s u b m it e v id e n c e th a t “a n im m ig r a n t v is a [ w a s ] im m e d ia te ly avai l abl e t o [her] . ” S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 5(a) . N ordoe s , a s N e i r a c ont e nds , I n r e V e l a r de - P a c he c o c om pe l the c onc l us i on thatthe B IA abused i t s di sc re t i on . In thatca se , the pet i t i on erm arri ed a U ni t ed S t a t e s c i t i z e n a f

t e rhi s de por t a t i on ha d a l r e a dy be e n or de r e d. V e l a r de - P a c he c o, 23 I . & N . D e c . a t 2 5 4 . A s a r e s u lt, th e p e titio n e r ’s w if e f ile d a n I - 1 3 0 p e titio n o n h is b e h a lf a n d h e s im u lta n e o u s ly f ile d a n I - 4 8 5 ap p lic a tio n f o rs ta tu s a d

ju s tm e n t. I d . T h e p et i t i o n er ad d i t i o n al l y fi l ed a m o t i o n t o reo p en h i s rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s, s u b m ittin g c o p ie s o f

th e a d ju s tm e n t ap p lic a tio n a n d s u p p o r tin g d o c u m e n ta tio n . I d . T he B IA ’ s f

orm erpo l i cyw i th res pectt o such m ot i on s w as t o d eny them w here the y ha d noty e tbe e n a dj udi c a t e d by the S e rvi c e . S e e i d. a t255. H ow e ve r , the B oard no t ed thatthe ef

fe ctof thatpo l i cycoup l ed w i th the l i m i t at i on that re spon dent s m ayfi l e onl y one m ot i on t o reopen w i thi n n i nety day s of afi nal a dm i ni s tr a t i ve or de ra nd the S e rvi c e ’ s i nabi l i ty t o a dj udi c a t e m a ny I - 130 pe t i t i ons w i thi n thatt i m e per i od , “ has bee n t o d epri ve a s m al l cl as s of r es po nd ent s, w ho ar e o th e rw is e p r im a f

a c ie e lig ib le f

o ra d ju s tm e n t, o f

th e o p p o r tu n ity to h a v e th e ir a dj us tm e ntappl i c a t i ons r e vi e w e d by a n I m m i gr a t i on J udge . ” I d. I n V e la r d e - P a c h e c o , th e r e f o r e , th e B o a r d c o n c lu d e d th a t:7

a pr ope r l yf

i l e d m ot i on t o r e ope n m a y be gr a nt e d, i n the e xe r c i s e of di s c r e t i on, t o pr ovi de a n a l i e n a n oppor tuni ty t o pur s ue a n appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntw he r e the f ol l ow i ng f

a c t or s a r e pr e s e nt : ( 1) the m ot i on i s t i m e l y f

i l e d; ( 2) the m ot i on i s notnum e r i c a l l y ba rr e d by the r e g u la tio n s ; ( 3 ) th e m o tio n is n o t b a rr e d b y M a tte ro f S h a a r , 2 1 I . & N . D e c . 541 ( B I A 1996) , ora ny othe rpr oc e dur a l gr ounds ; ( 4) the m ot i on pr e s e nt s c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e i ndi c a t i ng a s tr ong l i ke l i hood tha tthe r e s ponde nt ’ s m a rr i a ge i s bona f i de ; a nd ( 5) the S e rvi c e e i the rdoe s notoppos e the m ot i on orba s e s i t s oppos i t i on sol el y on M att erof A rthu r. I d. a t256. H ow e ve r , the B oa r d w e nton t o “ e m pha s i z e tha t[ i t ] w a s note ndor s [ i ng] g r a n t i n g a d

j u s tme n to f

s t a tu s i n e v e ry c a s e i n w h i c h a r e s p o n d e n tma k e s a p r i ma f a c i e s how i ng of

e l i gi bi l i ty ” a nd tha ti t s de c i s i on di d “ notr e qui r e I m m i gr a t i on J u d g e s to r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s p e n d in g a d ju d ic a tio n o f

a n I - 1 3 0 v is a p e titio n in every c as e i n w hi ch the re spon dentm ee t s a l l fi ve of the af orem ent i on ed fa ct ors. ” I d . a t 2 5 6

– 5 7 . V e l a r de - P a c he c o i nvol ve d onl y s t a tus a dj us tm e nt s ba s e d on m a rr i a ge . T he B I A p r o v id e d a r e a s o n e d e x p la n a tio n f o rd e c lin in g to ap p ly th a t p r e c e d e n t in th is d is tin g u is h ab le s e ttin g . S e e M o n ta n o C is n e r o s , 5 1 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 6 . S p e c if ic a lly , in de ny i ng N e i r a ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n the B I A e xpl a i ne d tha ti tdi d notf i nd the hol di ng of V e l a r de - P a c he c o r e l e va ntbe c a us e “ i tw a s l i m i t e d t o c a s e s i nvol vi ng a dj us tm e nt base d o n m arri age, ” w hi ch C on gres s had expres se d a desi re t o tre atdi ff er ent l y than pet i t i on s f

rom other f

am i l y m em bers . S ee al so V el ar de-P ac heco, 23 I. & N . D ec . a t257 ( r e a s oni ng tha ti t s hol di ng w a s “ c ons i s t e ntw i th C ongr e s s ’ l e gi s l a t i ve i nt e ntAlthough theparties ha ve not addressed the issue, w e note that the B IA re lied upon our 2 decision in Ug okwe v. U.S. Attorney General, 453 F .3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2006), in reje ctingthe g ov ernment’ s argument t

hat N e ira wa s in e lig ibl efo r s tatusa dju stm ent b e c a us esh efaile d to vo luntari ly

depa rt within th etim egra

nte d toher. In U g ok

we , this C ourt

he ld t hat “ thetim e ly filing of a motion to reopen tolls the period of voluntary depar ture pending theresolution of the motion to reopen.” Id. at 1331. Since the B IA’s dec ision, however, theSupreme Court has rejec ted the notion of “ a uto matictol lingof

thevo luntary

depa rt ureperi od

duringthependency

of themotion

to reopen.” See D ada v. Muka sey, U.S. , , 128 S. C t. 2307, 2318–19 (2008). In Dada , the Supreme Court he ld that, “to safe guard theright to pursue a motion to reopen for voluntar y depar ture re cipients, the alien must be permitted to withdraw, unilaterally, a voluntary depar ture reque st beforeexpiration of the depar ture period, without reg ard to the underlying merits of the motion to reopen.” Id. at , 128 S. Ct. at 2319. Bec ause w e havealre ady conclude d that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying N eira ’s motion on the basis expl ained a bove, we need not de cide wha

t effe ct, if any, the Dada

decision would haveon this case or addre ss the timeliness of Neira ’s filingof her motion to reopen.

8 i n a m e ndi ng the m a rr i a ge f r a ud pr ovi s i ons ” ) . B e c a us e the B I A pr ovi de d a re as on ed expl anat i on for dec l i ni ng t o ext end i t s ow n p re ce dent , w e c anno tsa y that i ta c t e d a rbi tr a r i l y orc apr i c i ous l y i n de ny i ng N e i r a ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n. F urtherm ore, even i f the B IA had con cl ud ed thatV el ar de-P ac heco w as ap p lic ab le to c a s e s s u c h a s th is o n e w h e r e a n ap p lic a tio n f o rs ta tu s a d

ju s tm e n t is base d o n a parent al re l at i on shi p, thatca se on l y hel d thatm ot i on s t o reopen “may b e g r a n te d , in th e e x e r c is e o f d is c r e tio n ” b u t n e e d n o t b e g r a n te d “in e v e ry c a s e in w hi ch the re spon dentm ee t s a l l fi ve of the af orem ent i on ed fa ct ors. ” I d. at25 6. It w a s , th e r e f

o r e , w ith in th e d is c r e tio n o f th e B I A to d e n y N e ir a ’s p e titio n e v e n if it h ad d et erm i n ed th atV el ard e-P ach eco ap p l i ed an d sh e sat i sfi ed al l fi v e fact o rs. 2 AF F I RME D.