T he Hon. Av er n Cohn, U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e f or t he E ast er n Di st r i ct of M i chi gan, si t t i ng b y * d e s i g n a ti o n . NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0017n .06 Fi led : Jan uar

y 8, 2008 06- 3799 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT CARLOS GO RDON, Pet itione r, v. MI CH AEL MUKAS EY , U nit ed St ates Atto rney General, Res pondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITION F ORR EVIE W FR OM THE BOAR D OF IM MI GRATION APP EALS

Before: RYAN and DA UG HTR EY , C ircui t J udg es; C OH N, D is tr ict J udg e. * PER CURIAM. W e have before us a pet ition for re v iew of a decision of

the Bo ard of Imm igration Appe als (BIA) den y ing petition er Carlos Gordon ’s motio n to reop en h is case to pe rmi t c onsi derati on of hi s a ppl ic ati on for adj ust ment of st atus by the Dep artment of Hom elan d Secu rity . Th e ap plication would constitu te Go rdon ’s secon d att em pt to av oid re mov al from the Uni ted Statesas an il leg al al ien throug h adj ust ment of st atus bas ed on marr iag e to an Amer ic an c it iz en. Gordon i s a nativ e of

Jamaic a w ho entered th e U nit ed St ates as a no n- immi g ra nt v is it or i n Apr il 2000 and ov ersta y ed hi s v is a, ev entual ly m ar ry ing Nic ole Johnson, a U nit ed06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 2 - Stat es ci ti z en, o n F ebr uar y 14, 2001. The c oupl e s eparated les s than a y ear l ater , and Gordon’ s ini ti al appl ic ati on for adj ust ment of s tatus w as deni ed in September 2001, as the re sul t of Jo hnson ’sw it hdraw al of her I- 130 Pe ti ti on for Al ien R elati v e. An i mmig ra ti on jud g e ordered Go rd on’ s remov al in Aug ust 2004, deny ing both w it hhol din g of re mov al and re li ef under the Uni ted Nat ion s Con v enti on Ag ain st Tortu re . The BIA aff ir med thatdec is ion on D ecember

1, 2005. Gordon c lai ms t hat someti me shor tl y after the BIA’ s d eci si on c ame dow n, he and John son reco nciled a nd o nce a gain began liv ing together as hu sban d an d w ife . As a re sul t, Johns on fil ed a n e w I- 130 pet it ion on G ordon’ s b ehal f in J anuar y 2006, a pe ti ti on that is apparentl y

st il l pendi ng resol uti on. Approx imat ely one month l ater , G ordon fil ed a moti on before the BIA , s eeki ng to re open hi s c ase in order to appl y for adj ust ment of st atus pendi ng the approv al of Ni col e’sI- 130 v is a pet it ion

. T h e B IAdeni ed th e moti on to reopen, findi ng both “ the p re v iou s w it hdraw al by [Jo hnson ] of the or ig ina l v is a pet it ion sh e fil ed [o n the peti ti oner ’s ] beh alf to be a si g nific ant factor to be consi dered” and als o “the ti ming of the [co upl e’s ] rec onci li ati on to be s omew hat sus pect .” I n i ts w ri tten deci si on i n thi s matter , t he Boa rd furth er more ex pla ine d: [W ]e find the ev ide nce present ed i n s uppor t of [G ordon’s] m o ti on to be somew hat s cantand li mite d, an d i nsuffici ent t o demonstrate the bona fides of the mar ri ag e. It consist s o n lyof [an a par tment] l ease, the I- 864, the G 325 forms , and some pictures and cards. [The g ov er nment] cor re ctl y note d in it s Oppos it ion that the f irst two pag es of the I- 864 execut ed by [J ohnso n] are m issing . . . . In additio n, w hile the mot iv e for the a lteratio n of the lea se is unc lea r, i t doe s a ppear thatthe pag e numbers w ere c hang ed. Ex amples06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 3 - of other ty pes of ev ide nce w hic h c oul d hav e been submi tted to de monstrate the b ona fidesof the mar ri ag e i ncl ude ev ide nce of a jo intbank ac countto show com min gli ng of

f inan cial resources, joint utility bills, joint insuran ce pol ic ies , or

a f f ida v it s o f third par

ti es hav ing kn ow led g e of the bona fide s o f the mar it al re lat ion shi p. Non e of thes e was present ed. W e hav e c onsi ste ntl y

recog niz ed th at “ a moti on to reopen s houl d notbe g ra nted unl ess the peti ti oner

makesa prim a facie sh ow ing that the statuto ry req uirements for

the und erly ing relief

have been met .” Yo usi f v. INS , 794 F.2d 23 6, 24 1 (6th Cir. 198 6). Ne ver thel ess , “ ev en i f the pet it ion er meets hi s b urden of sh ow ing a prim a facie c a s e of eligibili ty, the Boa rd ma y , w ithin its discretion , den y the m otion .” Id. Be caus e the dec is ion of the Boa rd w hether

to g ra nt or

to deny a mot ion to re open i s t hus w it hin the sound dis creti on of the BIA, see8 C .F .R . § 1003.2( a) ; Haddad v . G onzale s , 437 F .3d 5 15, 5 17 (6 th C ir . 200 6) , we w il l not o v ertur n i t unl ess “ the d eni al of [the] moti on to reopen . . . was made w it hout a rati onal ex pla nati on, i nex pli cabl y depar ted from est abl is hed pol ic ies , or rested on an imp ermissible basis such as invi diou s discrimina tion against a pa rticular race or group .” Al

lab ani v. Gonz ale s , 40 2 F. 3 d 6 6 8 , 67 5 (6 th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g Bala ni v. INS , 669 F.2d 11 57, 116 1 (6th Cir. 198 2)). There si mply w as no s uch defici ency i n thi s c ase. The B IA e x pli ci tl y dete rmi ned t hat Gordon fa ile d t o es tabl is h prim a facie el ig ibi li ty for a dju stmentof sta tus bas ed upon a marr iag e to an Amer ic a n c it iz en, o bser v ing thatGordon’ s a ppl ic ati on to reopen d id not cont ain any

of the u sual i ndi cat ion s o f a bona f idemarriage rela tionsh ip w ith Nicole John son. M ost of

the exhibits tha t t h e p e t itione r did atta ch to his m otion – the co uple ’s06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 4 - marr iag e l ic ense from 2001, pictures from the w eddi ng ceremony , undated phot og ra phs of the cou ple, a nd u nda ted note s w ritten by one or the oth er of the coup le – are, m oreo v er, w h o ll y i rrele v ant t o a d eter minat ion of w hether the coupl e was tr uly

l iv ing tog ether

as husba nd and w ife i n 2006. The onl y ev ide nce of that fact produc ed bythe peti ti oner was a c opy of an apar

tment lea se pur por

tedly sign ed by

Gordon and Jo hnson on D ecember 15, 200 5, exactlytwo w eeks after t he B IA ’ s d ec i s i on u ph ol di ng t he i mmi g rat i on j udge’s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g G o rd o n w i t h h o l d i n g o f re m o v a l a n d re l i e f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n t i o n . W e ag re e w it h the Board tha t t he s uspi ci ous ti ming of the l ease, as well as the absen ce of any add itiona l ev iden ce – such as receipts for the payme nt of rent on the ap artm ent , utilitybills in the n a m e o f

b oth G ordon and Jo hnson , and si mil ar i ndi ci a of a l eg it imat e, on g oin g marr iag e – s ev erely

undercut s t he pos si ble findi ng of a pr i m a facie ca s e . Ce rt a in ly, we canno t s ay

thatthe deni al of the moti on to reopen c onst it uted an abus e of di sc re ti on unde r t h e s i g n i fi c a n t l y

d e fe re n t i a l s t a n d a rd o f You sif

.

“ Prim a facie evidence, accord ing [to] the BIA, is evi den ce tha t ‘rev eals a rea sona ble likelihood thatthe sta tuto ry requirem ent s for

r e li e f h ave been satisf ied.’” Alizoti v. Gonz ale s , 4 7 7 F .3 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 2 ( 6 th Cir. 20 0 7 ) (qu o ti n g Ma tter of S– V– , 22 I&N D ec. 1306, 1308 ( BIA 2000) ). W e c oncl ude t hat t he ex is tenc e of two s ig nat u re s o n a for m le ase, w it hout more, is w hol ly ina deq uate to es tabl is h a pr im a facie cas e that a marr ied co upl e, sepa rated for over four years, has resum ed co hab itation und er circumsta nces th at w ould est abl is h a bona f

idemar ria g e under

the immi g ra ti on s tatut es. There i s n o bas is upon w hich to ov erturn th e ruling of the BI A in this ma tter.06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 5 - F o r t h is re a s o n , we DE NYt h e p e t it io n fo r re vie w.