2009 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 10-5-2009 

# O jo 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 . 07-3391

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_2009

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 2009 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 " O j o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 519. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/5191

I M G- 1 7 2 NOT 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 . 07- 3391; 08- 1496

___________ M IC H A E L O J O , 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 of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 98- 693- 294) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober1, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N A N D C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober5, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM I n thi s cons ol i dat ed appe al , M i chae l Oj o pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the fol l ow i ng or der s ent er ed bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) : the B I A ’ s J ul y12, 2007 or deraff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on for2

adj us t m entof s t atus ; and the B I A ’ s J anuary24, 2008 or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i ons for re v ie w . I. Oj o, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of N i ger i a, came t o the U ni t ed St at es i n 1997 t o r ece i ve m edi cal car e fora ca r di ac di s or der , and s t ay ed l ongerthan perm i t t ed. I n 2004, he mar r i ed W anda Cant r el l , a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. Shor t l yther eaf t er , C antr el l fi l ed an I - 30 al i en r el at i ve vi s a pet i t i on i n an ef for tt o obt ai n l egal perm anentr es i dents t atus forOj o, and Ojo in itia te d p ro c e e d in g s to a d ju s t h is s ta tu s . I n Sept ember2005, Oj o and hi s w i fe a t t ended a n i nt ervi ew w i th the U ni t ed St at es C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces ( “U SC I S”) i n N ew ark, N ew J er s ey . A tthe hea r i ng, C a n tre ll co m p lete d a n “ I-3 0 W ith d ra w a l” f o rm in w h ich sh e sta ted th a t sh e w ish e d to re sc in d th e p e tit io n sh e h a d f iled o n Ojo ’s b e h a lf

b e c a u se th e ir m a rria g e w a s f ra u d u len t; s peci fi cal l y , s he s t at ed thats he had be en “of fer ed a home/pl ace t o s t ayi f [he r ] hus band rec eive d a g ree n ca rd a s a re su lto f [ their] m arriage . ” (A R 0 0 0 1 5 4 . ) C o n seq u en tl y , Ojo’s appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus w as deni ed, and he w as pl ace d i n r emoval p ro c e e d in g s . S e e IN A § 2 3 7 (a )( 1 )( B ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 1 )( B ). A r emoval hear i ng t ook pl ace i n N ovember2005 befor e I J Pugl i es e. A tthe hear i ng, Oj o conce ded r emovabi l i tybuts oughtadj us t m entof s t atus bas ed on hi s m arr i age t o C antr el l . A l though Oj o’ s couns el r ecogni zed thatOj o had nei theran appr oved nor pen ding I- 13 0 v i sa pet i t i on , he ex plai ned t o IJ Pug l i ese that he i ntended t o co ntes tD ur i ng the hea r i ng, Oj o’ s att orneys oughta s hor tr ece s s i n or dert o cont act 1 C antr el l s o t hats he coul d confi r m t o the courtthats he di d i ndeed i nt end t o fi l e a s econd I-1 3 0 p e tit io n o n Ojo ’s b e h a lf. IJ G a rc yg ra n ted th e re q u e st, b u t co u n se l w a s u n a b le to re a c h C a n tr e ll, w h o w a s liv in g in K e n tu c k ya t th e tim e . 3 U SC I S’ s pos i t i on thatC antr el l had w i thdr aw n herpet i t i on. Oj o’ s couns el al s o i ndi cat ed thathe i nt ended t o have Cant r el l fi l e a ne w I - 130 pet i t i on. I n or dert o al l ow couns el an oppor tuni tyt o t ake thes e s t eps , I J Pugl i es e adj ourned the hea r i ng. R egar di ng the w ith d ra w n I-1 3 0 p e tit io n , the IJ s u g g e ste d th a t co u n se l m ig h t b e a b le to “ w o rk th in g s o u t” w ith the g o v ern m en t, b u t adv ised h im that, reg ard less, Ojo w as re q u ir ed to return to co u rt w ith “a n yan d all ap p li ca ti o n s n ex t t im e.” (A R 0 0 0 1 2 8 . ) Oj o’ s nexthear i ng t ook pl ace on M ar ch 22, 2006 befor e I J G ar cy . A tthe hea r i ng, th e g o v e rn m e n t re lied o n C a n tre ll’s “ I-1 3 0 W ith d ra w a l” f o rm to d e m o n stra te th a t th e o n ly vi s a pet i t i on thathad bee n fi l ed on Oj o’ s behal f had be en w i thdr aw n. Oj o ar gued, how ever , thatC antr el l ’ s w i thdr aw al form s houl d notbe gi ven l egal eff ectbeca us e s he had bee n coer ced i nt o s i gni ng i t . I J G ar cyr efus ed t o cons i derthi s ar gum enton the g ro u n d it la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n to d o s o . Ojo th e n a sk e d IJ G a rc yto k e e p th e p ro c e e d in g s o p e n , an d to m o v e th e m to h is c u rre n t re sid e n c e in M a ry lan d , so th a t C a n tre ll co u ld f ile a se c o n d I-3 0 p e tit io n o n h is behal f. I J G ar cydeni ed thes e r eques t s , expl ai ni ng thatOj o and hi s w i fe ha d al r eadybeen gi ven s ever al m onths t o fi l e a s econd I - 130 pet i t i on, buthad i nexpl i cabl yfai l ed t o do s o. 1 A cc o rdin g ly , b yo rde r en tered M arc h 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , the IJ d en ied O jo’s m o ti o n s fo r a c o n tin u a n c e a n d a c h a n g e o f v e n u e , an d e n ter e d a f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l.Ojo a ls o re n e w e d h is m o tio n f o r a c h a n g e o f

v e n u e . 2 4 Ojo a p p e a led IJ G a rc y ’s o rd e r to th e B IA . U p o n re v iew , the B IA f o u n d n o e rro r in the I J ’ s deci s i on t o denyr el i ef. Fi r s t , the B I A agr eed w i th I J G ar cythat , t o the ext entt hat Oj o w i s hed t o chal l enge the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s w i fe’ s deci s i on t o w i thdr aw al herI - 130 peti t i on , his rem ov al proceed i ng s w ere notthe p roper pl ace t o d o so. T he B IA al so agr eed w i th I J G ar cythatOj o had fa i l ed t o s how thathe w as el i gi bl e t o adj us thi s s t atus based o n h i s m arr i age to C antr el l . F i nall y , the B IA agreed w i th IJ G arcythat, becau se Ojo h a d f

a iled to sh o w th a t h e w a s e lig ib le to a d ju st, th e re w a s n o re a so n to g ra n t h is m ot i ons fora cont i nuance ora cha nge of ve nue. T her efor e, byor derent er ed J ul y12, 2 0 0 7 , th e B IA a f

f ir m e d IJ G a rc y ’s d e c is io n . I n O ct ober2007, Oj o m oved t o r eopen hi s cas e on the gr ound thathi s w i fe ha d s ubm i t t ed a s econd I - 130 vi s a pet i t i on s hor t l ybefor e the B I A i s s ued i t s J ul y12, 2007 d ec isi o n . A s a re su lt , Ojo arg u ed , h e w as th u s eli g ible to ad just his st atus . T h e B IA 2 d e n ied th e m o tio n b e c a u se , am o n g o th e r re a so n s, Ojo h a d f a iled to su b m it a c o p yo f h is a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra d j u s t me n to f

s t a tu s ( F o r m I - 4 8 5 ) wi th h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 . Oj o now pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s J ul y12, 2007 and J anuary24, 2008 d e c is io n s . II.W e have j ur i s di ct i on overOj o’ s cl ai m s of l egal and cons t i tut i onal err orpur s uant 3 to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). In su p p o rto f h is argu m en t th at th e B IA sh o u ld h av e “ d ee m ed p en d ing ” C an tr ell ’s 4 fi r s tI - 130, Oj o r el i es upon an I l l i noi s D i s tr i ctC our tdeci s i on i n a ci vi l act i on br ought agai ns tI N S underthe A dm i ni s tr at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct , 5 U . S. C . § 701 ets eq. , i n w hi ch the courthel d t hati tw as pot ent i al l yempow er ed t o decl ar e voi d an al l egedl ycoer ced w ith d ra w a l o f

a v isa p e tit io n in v io latio n o f th e p lain tiff ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. B o u k ris v . P errym an , 2 0 0 2 W L 1 9 3 3 5 4 at *2 , n . 1 (N . D . Il l. F eb . 7 , 2 0 0 2 ). T h at ca se, ho w ev er, di d notar i s e on a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of a BIA deci s i on, and di d notaddr es s w hethert he B I A had j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe val i di tyof the w i thdr aw al i n the cont extof r emoval p ro c e e d in g s. In su p p o rt o f h is o b jec tio n to th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f th e “ I-1 3 0 W ith d ra w a l” form , Oj o ci t es the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n I N S v. L opez- M endoza , 468 U . S. 1032 ( 1984) , forthe pr opos i t i on that“[e ] vi dence obt ai ned thr ough coer ci on i s i nadmi s s i bl e. ” 5 A . B I A ’ s J ul y12, 2007 D eci s i on D eny i ng A ppl i cat i on forA dj us t m entof St atus Oj o’ s pr i m arychal l enge t o t he B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on for adj us t m entof s t atus conce r ns hi s cont ent i on thatC antr el l ’ s “I - 130 W i thdr aw al ” form had no l egal eff

ectbeca us e s he had be en coe r ced i nt o s i gni ng i t . Speci fi cal l y , Oj o cont ends thathe w as deni ed due pr oces s w hen the I J pr ecl uded hi m fr om ar gui ng thatthe coe r ced w i thd raw al w as i nv al i d, and that the “I- 13 0 W i thd raw al ” form w as i nad m i ssi ble because i tw as obt ai ned thr ough coer ci on. 3 I J G ar cyhel d t hatOj o’ s chal l enge t o the l egi t i m acyof the w i thdr aw al w as bey ond h e r ju risd ictio n . O n a p p e a l, th e B IA a g re e d , co n c lu d in g th a t Ojo c o u ld n o t ra ise th is ar gum enti n t he cont extof hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs . W e agr ee. Oj o does notci t e, nor h a v e w e in d e p e n d e n tlyd isc e rn e d , an ya u th o rityin d ica tin g th a t IJ G a rc yh a d th e p o w e r to ei ther“dee m pendi ng” C antr el l ’ s fi r s tI - 130 pet i t i on ort o overturn the U SC I S’ s deci s i on to d e n yOjo ’s a p p lica tio n to a d ju st a s a re su lt o f

th e w ith d ra w a l. 4L opez- M endoza i s , how ever , i nappos i t e, as i tpert ai ns t o evi dence gather ed i n vi ol at i on of

th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. I d . a t 1 0 5 1 . Ojo c o n ten d s IJ P u g lies e w a s re f e rrin g to a p p lica tio n s “ o th e r th a n o n e s re late d to 5 m a rria g e -b a se d a d

ju stm e n t”— su c h a s a n a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m — w h e n h e in stru c ted Ojo to h a v e “ a n ya n d a ll ap p lica tio n s” re a d ya t th e n e x t h e a rin g . (R e p lyB r. 2

– 3 .) C o n tra ryto Ojo’s co n tention , h o w ev er, th e tran script of the h ea ri n g clea rl yd em o n str ates tha t I J Pugl i es e adj ourned the hea r i ng s o t hatOj o coul d pr epar e an appl i cat i on forw hat evert ype of r el i ef he s ought , w hethers uch appl i cat i on be bas ed on C antr el l ’ s or i gi nal I - 130 pet i t i on o r an o ther b asis fo r reli ef. (A R 0 0 0 1 2 8

– 1 2 9 . ) 6 N ext , Oj o cl ai m s that , dur i ng hi s N ovember9, 2005 hear i ng, I J Pugl i es e i nform ed hi m thathe w as notr equi r ed t o fi l e a ne w I - 130 befor e r eturni ng t o courtforhi s next hear i ng beca us e he mi ghtbe abl e t o r enew the i ni t i al pet i t i on bas ed on hi s coer ci on a rg u m e n t. Ojo a rg u e s th a t th is is n o w “ th e law o f th e c a se ,” a n d th a t IJ G a rc yim p ro p e rly p en ali ze d h im fo r fo ll o w ing IJ P u g li ese ’s ad v ice. C o n tr aryto Ojo’s co n tention , h o w ev er, the r ecor d r evea l s thatI J Pugl i es e gave no s uch advi ce. R ather , atthe N ovember9, 2005 hear i ng, Oj o’ s att orneyi ndi cat ed thathe i nt ended t o both cont es tthe w i thdr aw al of the or i gi nal I - 130 appl i cat i on, and fi l e a ne w I - 130. I n r es pons e, I J Pugl i es e s ugges t ed that co u n sel m igh t be a b le t o “w o rk th ing s o u t” w ith the g o v ern m en t on C an tr ell ’s i n it ial I1 3 0 p e tit io n , b u t ad v ise d h im th a t, reg a rd les s, Ojo w a s re q u ire d to re tu rn to c o u rt w ith “a n yan d all ap p li ca ti o n s n ex t t im e.” (A R 0 0 0 1 2 8 . ) T h u s, the re co rd d o es n o t sup p o rt 5 Oj o’ s ar gum enti n t hi s r egar d. Oj o nextar gues thatthe B I A ’ s s ubm i s s i on of hi s appea l t o a s i ngl e- m emberpanel w a s a rb itrar ya n d c a p ric io u s. P u rsu a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e ), all a p p e a ls a re a ss ig n e d to a s i ngl e B oar d m emberfordi s pos i t i on, “[u] nl es s a ca s e meet s the s t andar ds forF u rth e rm o re , alth o u g h Ojo c laim s th a t h e re q u e ste d a th re e -m e m b e r p a n e l in h is 6 n o ti ce o f a p p ea l, the re co rd d o es n o t app ea r t o co n tai n an ysu ch req u est. (A R 0 0 0 9 5

– 9 9 . ) 7 as s i gnm entt o a thr ee- m emberpanel underpar agr aph ( e) ( 6) of thi s s ect i on. ” Par agr aph (e )(6 ), in tu rn , p ro v id e s, in ter a lia, th a t: C ases m ayon l ybe assi gn ed fo r r eview bya t hree- m em ber pan el if the case present s . . . [t ]he n eed t o est abli sh a preceden tcon strui ng the m eaning o f l aw s, r egul at i ons , orpr ocedur es ; [t ] he nee d t o r evi ew a dec i s i on byan i m m i gr at i on j ud ge . . . that i s n ot i n con form i tyw i th the l aw or w i th ap pli cable precedents ; [t ] he nee d t o r es ol v e a ca se o r c ontr over s yof m aj ornat i onal i m por t ; . . . [or t] h e n e e d to re v e rs e th e d e c is io n o f a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e . . . . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )( 6 ). He r e , th e BI A d i s mi s s e d Oj o ’ s a p p e a l b e c a u s e h e h a d f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r i ma fac i e el i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef. T her efor e, Oj o’ s cas e di d notm eetthe cr i t er i a fors ubm i s s i on t o a thr ee- m emberpanel . A ccor di ngl y , i tw as notan abus e of di s cr et i on fora s i ngl em e m b e r p a n e l to re v iew h is a p p e a l. 6 Fi nal l y , Oj o cl ai m s thatthe B I A err ed bydeny i ng hi s m ot i on fora cha nge of venue, and af

fi r m i ng I J G ar cy ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on fora cha nge of ve nue, on the g ro u n d th a t h e h a d n o t f iled a n e w I-1 3 0 p e tit io n b e f o re se e k in g to c h a n g e v e n u e . Ojo ar gues thatthi s r equi r ementw as i m pr operbeca us e the I m m i gr at i on C our tPr act i ce M anual does notr equi r e anyappl i cat i ons orcopi es of appl i cat i ons t o be fi l ed w i th a change of venue m ot i on. T he r ecor d r efl ect s , how ever , thatthe B I A decl i ned t o m ove the cas e t o M ary l and bec aus e Oj o had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h pr i m a fa ci e ent i t l ementt o the u n d erly ing reli ef

, n o t bec au se f

il ing a n ew I-13 0 w as a p roc ed u ral prere q u isi te fo r aOj o ar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byr equi r i ng hi m t o pr es entcl earand 7 convi nci ng evi dence of the bona f i des of hi s m arr i age unde ri t s deci s i on i n M att erof V el ar de- Pachec o, 23 I & N D ec. 253 ( B I A 2002) . W e nee d notr eac h thi s i s s ue bec aus e, as not ed above , w e bel i eve thatthe B I A act ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on on a n a lte rn a tiv e b a s is . 8 c h a n g e o f

v e n u e m o tio n . T h e re f

o re , th is a rg u m e n t a ls o f a ils . B . B I A ’ s J anuary24, 2008 D eci s i on D eny i ng the M ot i on t o R eopen W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on, aff or di ng br oad def

er ence t o t he B I A ’ s deci s i on. E zea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 4 0 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h ere fo re, i n o rde r t o o b tai n reli ef , Ojo m u st sho w that the B IA ’s de c i s i on t o d e nyr e op e ni ng w a s a rbi tr a ry , i rr a t i on a l , orc on tr a ryt o l a w . Se e Ti pu v. I N S, 2 0 F . 3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). U pon r evi ew , w e conc l ude thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng Ojo ’s m o tio n to re o p e n . T h e a p p lica b le r e g u latio n s s p e c if yth a t an a lien se e k in g to r eopen pr ocee di ngs i n or dert o s ubm i tan appl i cat i on forr el i ef musts ubm i ta copyof “the appr opr i at e appl i cat i on forr el i ef a nd al l s uppor t i ng document at i on. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2; se e a lso In re Y e w o n d w o se n , 2 1 I& N D e c . 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 2 6 (B IA 1 9 9 7 ) (“ [ A ] f a ilu re to su b m it a n a p p lic a tio n f

o r r e lie f . . . w ill typ ic a lly re s u lt in th e B o a rd ’s d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n .” ). T hus , i n or dert o obt ai n r eopeni ng, Oj o w as r equi r ed t o s ubm i tt o the B I A hi s I - 485 app l i cat i on for adjustm ent of st atus. T he record refl ect s that he fai l ed to do so . A s a r es ul t , the B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng r el i ef. 7 W e have r evi ew ed Oj o’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s and conc l ude thattheyar e w i thoutOj o al s o ar gues thathi s r emoval w oul d vi ol at e hi s r i ght s underthe A m er i can 8 D ecl ar at i on of the R i ght s and D ut i es of M an, gener al pr ece pt s of i nt ernat i onal hum an r i ght s l aw , and the cons t i tut i onal pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tcruel and unus ual puni s hm ent beca us e he ha s a s er i ous car di ac c ondi t i on forw hi ch he c annotr ece i ve ca r e i n N i ger i a. N o tab ly , h o w e v e r, Ojo f a iled to ra ise th e se a rg u m e n ts b e f o re th e B IA . A s a re su lt, th is courtl acks j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew them. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ( exhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i s m andat oryand j ur i s di ct i onal ) ; B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F .3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e M o tio n to S u p p lem e n t th e R e c o rd o n A p p e a l an d th e S e c o n d M o tio n to 9 S u p p lem en t th e R ec o rd o n A p p ea l and U rge n t R eq u est fo r an E x p ed it ed D ec isi o n are d e n ie d . 9 me r i t . T h e r e f

o r e , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. 8 9