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 12-29-2009 

# Zhe ng 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 . 07-1126

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 " Zhe n g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 35. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/35NOT 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 o. 07- 1126 WEN Z HE NG Z HE NG,

Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

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 070- 010- 027) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e C har l es M . H oneym an Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber16, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber29, 2009)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM W en Zheng Z heng pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l deny h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.W hi l e i tdoes notm ake a nydi ffe r ence t o the out come i n thi s cas e, the mot i on w as 1 d a t e d M a y1 0 , 2 0 0 6 . I ti s n o tc l e a rwh a ttr a n s p i r e d i n th e i n t e r i m. 2 I . Z h e n g , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f C h in a , e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s in th e e a rl y1 9 9 0 ' s . H e w as pl ace d i nt o r emoval pr ocee di ngs , and ther eaf t ers oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, al l of w hi ch w er e deni ed by th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e (“ IJ” ) o n Ja n u a ry2 6 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls i s s ued a f

i nal or derof r emoval on D ece m ber13, 2005. I tdoes notappea rthatpet i t i oner f ile d a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w a t th a t tim e . O n D ece m ber27, 2005, pet i t i oner ’ s ex- w i fe, M s . L u, fr om w hom he w as di vor ced i n 1999, w as gr ant ed as y l um . Pet i t i oneral l eges thathe bec ame aw ar e of the gr antof as y l um t o hi s ex- w i fe i n l at e February2006. H e then vi s i t ed hi s form eratt orneyon M ar ch 9, 2006, atw hi ch t i m e he w as i nform ed thathe coul d fi l e a mot i on t o r eopen w i thi n 90 day s of the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof r emoval ; i n hi s cas e, on orbefor e M ar ch 13, 2 0 0 6 . O n M o n d a y , M a rc h 1 3 , p e tit io n e r m e t w ith h is e x -w if e ’s a tto rn e y , w h o re p o rte d ly in f o rm e d h im th a t h is e x -w if e ’s a sy lu m c laim h a d n o th in g to d o w ith h is c a se a n d th a t, i n anyevent , i tw as t oo l at e t o pr epar e and f i l e a mot i on t o r eopen. O n M ar ch 15, 2006, p e tit io n e r re tain e d p re se n t co u n se l, w h o p re p a re d a n d f iled a m o tio n to re o p e n o n h is behal f. T he mot i on w as fi l ed on J une 13, 2006, and r eques t ed thatthe B I A r eopen 18 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i i ) pr ovi des thatthe 90- dayt i m e l i m i ts hal l notappl yt o a 2 m o tio n to re o p e n th a t is “ [ a ]g re e d to b ya ll p a rties a n d jo in tlyf iled .” W h ile p e tit io n e r d id re q u e s t th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t jo in th e m o tio n , th e G o v e rn m e n t d e c lin e d to d o s o . 3 pet i t i oner ’ s r emoval pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i i ) . Pet i t i oner 2 fu rth er c lai m ed that the 9 0 -da yli m it ati o n p eriod sh o u ld b e e q u it ab lytoll ed , as th e f ail u re t o m eetthe dea dl i ne w as due t o ci r cumst ance s outof hi s contr ol and he e xer ci s ed due di l i gence t o pr om pt l yfi l e the mot i on. O n D ece m ber19, 2006, the B I A i s s ued an or derhol di ng thatthe mot i on t o r eopen w a s u n tim e ly , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(2 ), th a t p e tit io n e r f a iled to d e m o n stra te th a t a r egul at oryexce pt i on t o t he t i m e barappl i ed, s ee 8 C. F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) , and thathe fai l ed t o m ake a cas e forthe appl i cat i on of equi t abl e t ol l i ng, ci t i ng I avor s ki v. I N S, 232 F. 3d 124, 129- 35 ( 2d C i r . 2000) . “J . A . 70. ” Fur therm or e, the B I A decl i ned t o cons i der hi s m ot i on t o r eopen s ua s pont e. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( a) . A ccor di ngl y , the B I A deni ed p e t i t i o n e r ’ s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n . T h r o u g h c o u n s e l , Z h e n g t i me l yf i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w p u r s u a n tt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on. See Li u v. A t t orneyG eneral , 55 5 F . 3d 14 5, 14 8 (3d C i r. 20 09 ). U nd er this st and ard, w e w i l l rever se the B I A ’ s deci s i on onl yi f i ti s “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” Sevoi an v. A s h c ro f t, 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). II I.4

Z h e n g ’s m o tio n to re o p e n w a s c le a rl yu n tim e ly. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 2 ). W hi l e he a ppear s t o conce de thi s , he ar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o equi t abl yt ol l the fi l i ng deadl i ne. H e mai nt ai ns thatthe fi l i ng deadl i ne maybe equi t abl yt ol l ed w hen a pa r tyhas exer ci s ed due di l i gence and the ci r cumst ance s pr event i ng the partyfr om t i m el yfi l i ng w er e bey ond hi s contr ol . T he G overnm ent r es ponds thatthe B I A act ed w el l w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on as Z heng fa i l ed t o pr ovi de any m at er i al evi dence i n s uppor tof equi t abl e t ol l i ng and neve ral l eged thathe w as pr event ed fr om fi l i ng a t i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen due t o fr aud. M o st U .S . C o u rts o f

A p p e a ls, in c lu d in g th is o n e , h a v e re c o g n ize d th e a v a ilab ili ty of equi t abl e t ol l i ng i n i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs undercert ai n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s . See, e. g. , Fust agui o D o N as ci m ent o v. M ukas ey , 549 F. 3d 12, 18 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) ( t i m e per i od m aybe ext ended “ i n exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s ”) ; B arryv. M ukas ey , 524 F. 3d 721, 724 ( 6th C i r . 2008) ( “[D ] el ayi n fi l i ng the mot i on t o r eopen [ m us tbe] due t o an exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance bey ond hi s contr ol . ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; B or ges v. G onzal es , 402 F. 3d 398, 406 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( appl y i ng the “‘ ol d chanc eryrul e’ ” forequi t abl e t ol l i ng on the bas i s of fr aud) ; Si ngh v. A s hcr oft , 367 F. 3d 1182, 1185- 86 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( r ecogni zi ng appl i cat i on of “e qui t abl e t ol l i ng of dea dl i nes . . . dur i ng per i ods w hen a pet i t i oneri s pr event ed fr om fi l i ng beca us e of de cept i on, fr aud, orerr or , as l ong as the pet i t i oneract s w i th due di l i gence i n di s cover i ng the dec ept i on, fr aud, orerr or ”) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ); Jo b e v . IN S , 2 3 8 F .3 d 9 6 , 1 0 0 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ E ]q u itab le to lli n g ‘is5

ap p rop ri ate o n lyw h en the c ir cu m stan ce s tha t cau se a [p arty ] t o m iss a fil ing d ea d li n e a re o u t of h is ha n d s’”) (qu o ti n g S alois v . D im e S av ing s B an k , 1 2 8 F . 3 d 2 0 , 2 5 (1 C ir . st 1997) ) ; I avor s ki v. I N S, 232 F. 3d 124, 134 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( “I n a s i tuat i on w her e fr aud or conce al m entof the exi s t ence of a c l ai m pr event s an i ndi vi dual fr om t i m el yfi l i ng, equ i t able t oll i ng of a st atute of l i m i t at i on s i s perm i t t ed u nti l the fraud or conc eal m ent i s, ors houl d have be en, di s cover ed bya r eas onabl e per s on i n the s i tuat i on. ”) . E ven as s um i ng thatZ heng ac t ed w i th t he r equi s i t e di l i gence i n pur s ui ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, h e still m u st d e m o n stra te th a t so m e e x ter n a l f o rc e p re v e n ted h im f

ro m tim e lyf

ili n g h is m o tio n . B a se d o n th e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d is c re tio n in c o n c lu d in g th a t Z h e n g f a ile d to m e e t th is s ta n d a rd . T h e re m a in d e r o f

Z h e n g ’s a rg u m e n ts a re d ire c ted to th e u n d e rly in g m e rits o f h is cas e. B eca us e w e def

ert o t he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatZ heng’ s m ot i on t o r eopen w as nott i m el yfi l ed, w e have no occa s i on t o r eac h thes e ar gum ent s atthe pr es entt i m e. Ba s e d o n th e f

o r e g o i n g , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.