FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 23, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 59 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 79 -6 62 -5 65

PETRIT NDRECA, a.k .a. Xhaf

er Go rja, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:PetritNdre ca p et it io ns th is Co urt fo r rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s’ (BIA) o rd er, wh ic h d en ie d h is un ti m el y m ot io n t o re co ns id er i ts di sm is sa l o f hi s ap pe al of t he Im m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s fin al ord er o f rem ov al an d de cl in edto reo pe n h is pro ceed in gs su a sp on te . Ndrec a se ek s as y lu m an d withh ol di ng of r em ov al , cla im in g t ha t, i f de po rte d t o h is na ti ve Alb an ia , he a ndhi s fam il y ris k p ers ecu ti on an d t hr eat s t o t he ir p ers on al saf ety , inpa rt due to hi s fam il y ’s affi li at io n wi thth e Alb an ia n Dem oc rat ic Party . Ndrec a cl ai m s tha t h is fo rm er co un se l p ro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e, bo th by fail in g t o fi le a ti m el y br ie f be fo re the BIA an d b y m is si ng th e fi li ng de ad li ne forrev ie w inth is Co urt. Add it io na ll y , Ndre ca ar gu es th atth e BIA erredinfin di ng th athe di d n ot de m on st rat e h ow al le ge d c ha ng edco nd it io ns inAlb an iam at eri al ly affecthi s as y lu m cla im . Last , Ndre ca cl ai m s tha t thi s C ou rt h as juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s ref us al to ex erci se it s d is cret io n t o re op enpro ceed in gs su a sp on te pu rs ua nt to 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (a). Aft er tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e p art ie s’ bri efs an d the reco rd , we den y

Ndre ca’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w with re sp ectto hi s fi rs t two cl ai m s an d d is m is s h is § 1 00 3.2 (a) c la im forwantof ju ris di ct io n. I. W e fi rs t co ns id er wh ethe r th e BIA erredwhen itde ni edNdre ca’s u nt im el y m ot io n t o re op en , whi charg ue d: (1) th athi s fo rm er co un se l p ro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve 2as si st an ce b y m is si ng a BIA fi li ng de ad li ne an d fa il in g t o fi le a ti m el y pe ti ti on for rev ie w inth is Co urt; an d (2 ) th atNdre ca p ro vi de d p rev io us ly unava il ab le ev id en ce es tabl is hi ng ch an ge d c on di ti on s i n Al ba ni a th atm at eri al ly affect edhi s cl ai m . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enanimmig rat io n p ro ceed in g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, d et erm in in g o nl y “whe th er the BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n a n arb it rary or cap ric io us m an ne r.” Ji an g v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 5 68 F.3d12 52 , 12 56 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Here we co nc lu de th atth e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g Ndreca ’s un ti m el y m ot io n t o re op enbe cau se , onth is reco rd , no ex cep ti on to th e ti m el in es s re qu ire m en t ap pl ie s. Gen eral ly, anali enm

us t fi le hi s m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs withi n n in ety

da y s o f th e BIA’s fi na l ad m in is tra ti ve rem ov al ord er. 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (A), (C)( i). Th e fi li ng de ad li ne is m an da to ry an d ju ris di ct io na l, an d th eref or e n otsubjec t t o e qu it ab le to ll in g. See Ab di v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 30 F.3d 11 48 , 11 50 & n .2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (fi nd in g n o abu se of d is cret io n i n B IA’s de ni al of un ti m el y m ot io n t o re op en , andth us de cl in in g t o a dd res s the un de rlyin g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m); s ee al so Ani n v . Ren o, 1 88 F.3d12 73 , 12 78 –7 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (refu si ng to ap pl y equi tabl e to ll in g t o m ot io n t o re op enall eg in g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l). Howev er, the de ad li ne do es no t ap pl y fora m ot io n p rem is edup on ch an ge d 3co un try con di ti on s, s o l on g a s tha t m ot io n i s s up po rte d b y ev id en ce tha t the ch an ge s ar e m at eri al , andth e ev id en ce was no t av ai labl e an d c ou ldno t h av e b een di sc ov eredor p res en te d a t the pre vi ou s re m ov al he ari ng . See Ji an g, 5 68 F.3d at 12 56 (ap pl y in g 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( ii )). Pro vi ng m at eri al ity is a pa rti cu la rly “he av y

bu rd en ,” th ou gh , bec au se th e al ie n m us t d em on st rat e “ th at , if th e p ro ceed in gs were o pe ne d, the ne w evi de nc e wou ldli ke ly chan ge th e res ul t i n th e cas e.” Id . at 1 25 6– 57 . W it h re sp ectto hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l ar gu m en t, Ndrecais co rrec t tha t an ali enm ay

so m et im es su ccee d i n h av in g h is pro ceed in gs reo pe ne d du e to co un se l’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e. See Dak an e v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 99 F.3d 12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Bu t tha t ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y he re. Ndr eca’s m ot io n t o re op enwas unt im el y an d e qu it ab le to ll in g was no t av ai labl e. Mo reo ve r, atlea stth ree years p as se d b etweenth e co nc lu si on of Ndreca ’s di rectap pe al an d hi s m ot io n t o re op en , su gg es ti ng a la ckof d il ig en ce tha t ar gu es ag ai ns t equi tabl e to ll in g e ve n i f itwere av ai labl e. Fu rth er, i n h is m ot io n t o re op en , Ndre ca d idno t d em on st rat e h ow h is at to rn ey ’s erro rs pre

jud ic edhi m . See i d. at12 74 (requi rin g, am on g o th er thi ng s, a sh owi ng of p reju di ce t o s uc ceedon a m ot io n t o re op enba se d o n i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce). Th e BIA af

firm edth e IJ ’s det erm in at io n t ha t Ndreca ’s tes ti m on y was 4no t cr ed ib le , bas edon di sc rep an ci es with o th er t es ti m on y inth e rec or d, an d s ta te d th atNdre ca co ul d n otm eethi s ev id en ti ary bu rd enab se ntcred ib le tes ti m on y . And th e BIA an d IJ ’s dec is io ns wou ldha ve be enrev ie wedun de r th e h ig hl y de fere nt ia l st an da rdof s ub st an ti al ev id en ce. See Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 83 –8 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Ndrec a h as no t o ffer edan y ba si s fo r th is Co urt t o fi nd“ a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t b utforth e at to rn ey ’s erro r, th e o ut co m e o f th e pr oc eed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t.” Id . at 1 27 3. Fo r eac h o f th es e rea so ns , Ndr eca’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m fai ls . Mo vi ng to Ndre ca’s s eco ndarg um en t, we co nc lu de th atth e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t ha t Ndrecadi d n otsh ow h ow al le ge d c ha ng ed co nd it io ns inAlb an iam at eri al ly affecthi s as y lu m cla im . Spe ci fic al ly, Ndr eca

1 fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atco nd it io ns forAlb an ia n Dem oc rat ic Party m em be rs ha d ch an ge d m at eri al ly, su chth atth e d is po si ti on of h is asylu m cla im m ig htha ve ch an ge d. Se e Ji an g, 5 68 F.3d at12 56 –5 7. In hi s af fid av itsupp orti ng hi s m ot io n, fo r in st an ce, Ndrecast at edth at“ Alb an iarem ai ns un de r th e sa m e co nd it io ns with

We need not addr ess Ndre ca’ s expressed fe ar that his children fa ce a risk of being 1 kidnaped a

nd traff icked in Albania , due to their U.S. citizenship, or that he is more likely to be perse cuted be cause of their nationality . The risk of ha rm to Ndrec a’s f

amily members, though understanda

bly worrisome, doe s not establish that he harbor s a we ll-grounded risk of future perse cution. In re A

–K–, 24 I . & N . Dec . 275, 278–79 (B IA 2007); see also Z hangv. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F .3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009) (statingthat petitioner ca nnot avoid the re quirement of cha ng ed countr

y conditions by

demonstratingonly

a cha ng e in his persona l circumstanc es). 5th e sa m e p ro bl em s an d c orrupt io n e ve r si nc e I can rem em be r.” And , th ou gh Ndr eca p ro vi de d e vi de nc e th atAlb an ia ’s po li ti cal cri si s was in te ns ifyin g, h e d id no t ex pl ai n wh y

he hi m se lf f

ears pe rs ecu ti on as ares ul t. See Maz ari eg os v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 2 41 F.3d13 20 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (s ta ti ng th atasylu m eli gi bi li ty do es no t ex te nd“ to an y on e who fear s the ge ne ral dang er tha t i ne vi tabl y acco m pani es po li ti cal ferm en t an d fa ct io na l s tri fe”) . Suc h an e xp la na ti on wou ld ha ve be enpa rti cu la rly app ro pr ia te gi ve n t ha t Ndrecacla im s t o fe ar p ers ecu ti on in pa rt due to hi s af

fil ia ti onwith apo li ti cal pa rty tha t, unl ik e whe n h e o rig in al ly pe ti ti on edforrel ie f ni ne y ears ag o, n ow g ov ern s the co un try. L as t, we ar e m in df ul th atNdre ca’s cl ai m

of wo rs en in g c on di ti on s fo r Alb an ia n Dem oc rat ic Party m em be rs res ts onth e as su m

pt io n t ha t h e was in de eda m em be r of th atparty, an as su m pt io n b el ie d b y

th e IJ ’s con cl us io n t ha t h is tes ti m on y was n otcred ib le an d th e fac t tha t h is pa rty m em be rs hi p c ardco ul d n otbe auth en ti cat edbe fo re the BIA. Hav in g c on cl ud edth atth e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Ndreca ’s un ti m el y m ot io n t o re op en , we den y inpa rt h is pe ti ti on forrev ie w. II. Last , Ndre ca u rg es th atwe rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si onno t t o e xe rci se it s di sc ret io n a ndreo pe n h is pro ceed in gs su a sp on te pu rs ua ntto 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (a). W e m us t i ni ti al ly det erm in e whe th er we d o, i n fa ct , hav e subjec t-matte r 6juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w su cha cl ai m . See Len is v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 25 F.3d12 91 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e h av e p rev io us ly hel d t ha t we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enba se d o n i ts su a sp on te au th or it y . See i d. at12 92 –9 4. Th is is be cau se th e so ur ce o f th atau th or ity , 8 C.F.R . § 10 03 .2(a ), pr ov id es no m ean in gf ul st an da rdag ai ns t wh ic h t o e va lu at e th e BIA’s ex erci se of i ts owndi sc ret io n. Id . Thu s far, th e Supr em e Co urt h as no t i ns tru ct ed us di ffer en tl y . See Ku can a v . Hol de r, 13 0 S . Ct. 8 27 , 83 9 n .18 (20 10 ) (“ W e ex pr es s n o o pi ni on on whet he r fed eral co urts m ay rev ie w th e Bo ard ’s dec is io n n ot to reo pe n re m ov al pro ceed in gs su a sp on te . Cou rts of Ap pe al s h av e h el d t ha t s uc h de ci si on s ar e unr ev ie wab le be cau se su a sp on te reo pe ni ng is co m m it te d t o a ge nc y di sc ret io n b y

law.”) . Nordo es th e fac t tha t Ndreca ’s cla im is ba se d o n t he all eg edin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f hi s co un se l ch an ge ou r an al y si s. We sti ll lac k juris di ct io n, h av in g cl earl y st at edth at“ th e fai lu re t o re cei ve rel ie f th atis purel y di sc ret io nary

inna tu re do es no t am ou ntto a de pr iv at io n o f a l ib erty in te res t.” Garci a v . U.S. Att’y Gen. , 32 9 F .3d12 17 , 12 24 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); se e al so Sch eere r v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 13 F.3 d 1 24 4, 1 25 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (co nc lu di ng th atth e fai lu re t o re cei ve di sc ret io na ry

rel ie f do es no t am ou ntto a du e p ro ces s v io la ti on ). Thu s, we d is mis s thi s p et it io n i ns of ar as itreque st s tha t we re vi ew th e BIA’s 7de ci si on no t t o re op enth e p ro ceed in gs th ro ug h i ts ownsu a sp on te auth or it y .

PETI TI ON DENI ED IN PART AND DISMI SSED I N PART
.

8