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 1-14-2009 

# Ra ymond M ar t a din at a 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 . 08-1575

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 " R a ymond M ar t a d in at a v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2037. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2037NOT 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. 08- 1575

___________ RA YM OND MART ADI NAT A, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on ForR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 79- 497- 612 Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d V . F erl i se

____________________________________ 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 ber17, 2008 M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary14, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerR aym ond M art adi nat a, an ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i an nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on J anuary30, 2001 as a noni m m i gr antB - 2 vi s i t or w ith a u th o ri z a tio n to re m a in f o r a te m p o ra ry p e ri o d n o t to e x c e e d J u ly 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 .In pert i nen tpart , the B oard co ncluded that M art adinat a suffered n o p rej ud i ce as a 1 r es ul tof hi s havi ng had t o pr ocee d w i thouthi s r epr es ent at i ve, beca us e hi s cumul at i ve exper i ence s , i ncl udi ng one vi ol enti nci denti n J ul y1998 dur i ng w hi ch he s uffe r ed s er i ous injuries, d id n o t am o u n t t o p ast p erse cu ti o n . W ith resp ec t t o a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, ther e w as no evi dence thathi s fami l ym ember s , w ho r emai ned i n I ndones i a, had bee n t ar get ed forper s ecut i on, no evi dence of an a ctual patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on agai ns tethni c C hi nes e I ndones i an ci t i zens , s ee Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537- 38 & n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , and, al though the countrycondi t i ons evi dence des cr i bed a bl eak s i tuat i on forethni c C hi nes e i n s om e part s of I ndones i a, otherpart s of I ndones i a had n o t exp erien ce d the s am e d ifficu lt ies, an d there w ere co u n terva il ing tr en d s tow ard m oder at i on. 2 M art adi nat a over s t ay ed hi s vi s i t , and w as s erved w i th a N ot i ce To A ppearforr emoval pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch al l eged thathe w as r emovabl e underI m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct ( “I N A ”) § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) . O n M ay23, 2005, the I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed a s econd mot i on forchange of venue , r equi r ed M art adi nat a t o pr ocee d w ith o u t h is a c c re d ited re p re se n tativ e , M s. Ja n e t H in sh a w -T h o m a s, a n d d e n ied h is appl i cat i on foras y l um underI N A § 208( a) , 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) , and w i thhol di ng of rem ov al un der I N A § 2 41 (b) (3) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)( 3), and the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e, 8 C . F. R . §§ 1208. 16( c) , 1208. 18. O n D ece m ber5, 2006, the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. M art adi nat a obt ai ned new 1 c o u n s e l a n d t i m e l yp e t i t i o n e d f o rr e v i e w o f

th e B o a r d ’ s D e c e m b e r5 , 2 0 0 6 d e c i s i o n . We h a v e a d d re s s e d th is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w (N o . 0 7 -1 0 1 2 ) i n a s e p a ra te o p in io n . M art adi nat a al s o, w i th new couns el ’ s as s i s t ance , fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen w i th the B oar d on M ar ch 7, 2007 i n an att empt t o r emedyan evi dent i arypr obl em athi s or i gi nalD ur i ng hi s r emoval hear i ng, the governm entel i ci t ed t es t i m onyfr om M art adi nat a on 2 cr os s - exami nat i on thathi s m otherhad s i nce di ed “a s a r es ul tof per s ecut i on. ” M art adi nat a’ s s i bl i ngs t ol d hi m thats om eone thr ew a r ock atheras s he w as r i di ng her bicy cl e t o the m arket . T he IJ could not t ake thi s i ncidenti nto consi derat i on becau se M a r t a d i n a t a f

a i l e d t o o f

f e re v i d e n c e a s t o wh o th r e w th e r o c k , a n d wh e th e ri twa s th r o wn bya nat i ve M us l i m beca us e hi s m otherw as ethni c C hi nes e. I n heraff

i davi t , M s . H i ns haw - T hom as s t at ed that , aft ernots eei ng M art adi nat a for 3 s om e t i m e, s he metw i th hi m on t he eve ni ng of M ay22, 2005. She w as havi ng br eathi ng di ffi cul t i es , and advi s ed hi m s he mi ghtnotbe abl e t o att end hi s hear i ng. O n the morni ng of the hea r i ng, s he att empt ed t o cal l the I m m i gr at i on C our ta t ot al of s i x t i m es , butw as for ced t o l eave a mess age on the aut om at ed ans w er i ng s ervi ce. She m ade the as s um pt i on th a t h e r m e ss a g e w o u ld b e p ick e d u p b yso m e o n e a t th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt. T he mot i on w as due on M onday , M ar ch 5, 2007. 4 3 r emoval hear i ng, and pr ovi de an e xpl anat i on forhi s r epr es ent at i ve’ s fai l ur e t o appea rat 2 thathear i ng. I neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance on the partof M s . H ens haw - T hom as w as m ent i oned i n the al t ernat i ve as a pos s i bl e bas i s forr eopeni ng. A pp. 28. W i th hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, M art adi nat a s ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tfr om M s . H i ns haw - T hom as , m edi cal r ecor ds 3 document i ng the s ever e i nj ur i es he s uffe r ed dur i ng the J ul y1998 i nci dent , and a c opyof h is m o th e r’ s d e a th c e rt if ic a te . M a rt a d in a ta a ls o s u b m itte d a n a f f id a v it. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) ( “A m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs s hal l s t at e the new fac t s thatw i l l be p ro v e n a t a h e a rin g to b e h e ld if th e m o tio n is g ra n ted a n d sh a ll b e su p p o rte d b ya f f id a v its o r o th e r e v id e n tia ry m a te ri a l.” ). T h e D e p a rt m e n t o f

H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty o p p o s e d M a rt a d in a ta ’s m o tio n to re o p e n . I n a dec i s i on dat ed J ul y2, 2007, the B oar d deni ed the mot i on as unt i m el y , beca us e i tw as fil ed m o re tha n 9 0 d ay s af ter i ts D ec em b er 5 , 2 0 0 6 d ec isi o n , see 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2). 4O f

c o u rse , M s. H e n sh a w -T h o m a s d id n o t p a rticip a te in th e f ili n g o f th e u n tim e ly 5 m ot i on t o r eopen. 4 T he B oard fu rther con cl ud ed thatexcep t i on al ci rcum st ances d i d n ot w arr ant the ex erci se o f its p o w e r to su a sp o n te r e o p e n p ro c e e d in g s, se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (a ); M a t t e ro f

J - J - , 2 1 I . & N. De c . 9 7 6 ( BI A 1 9 7 7 ) , b e c a u s e M a r t a d i n a t a s t i l l h a d n o ts h o wn that he w as prej ud i ced b yhav i ng had t o p roceed w i tho ut M s. H enshaw -Th om as’ as s i s t ance . G i ven the I J ’ s favor abl e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w i th r es pectt o the one vi ol ent i nci denti n J ul y1998, M art adi nat a coul d nots how thathi s m edi cal evi dence document i ng th o se in ju rie s w o u ld h a v e a ltere d th e o u tco m e . In a d d iti o n , h e still co u ld n o t sh o w a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed on an a s s ert i on thathi s fami l ym ember s had been ha r m ed, beca us e hi s m other ’ s death cert i fi cat e byi t s el f w as notpr obat i ve of the r eas on forthe att ack thatki l l ed her . Forthi s s ame r eas on, thati s , the abs ence of any pr ej udi ce t o M art adi nat a, the B oar d concl uded thati tw as notnece s s aryt o cons i der wh e th e re q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g o n th e g r o u n d o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e b yM s . He n s h a wT h o m as w as a p p rop ri ate, see g en era ll yM ah m o o d v . G o n za les, 4 2 7 F . 3 d 2 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). N o tim e ly p e titio n f o r r e v ie w o f

th e B o a rd ’s J u ly 2 , 2 0 0 7 d e c is io n w a s f ile d . 5 A ti s s ue i n t he i ns t antpet i t i on forr evi ew , M art adi nat a’ s new couns el fi l ed a m ot i on t o r ei s s ue the B oar d’ s J ul y2, 2007 deci s i on, w hi ch found the mot i on t o r eopen unt i m el yand i n w hi ch the B oar d decl i ned t o exer ci s e i t s s ua s pont e author i tyt o r eopen th e p ro c e e d in g s. N e w c o u n se l co n ten d e d th a t h e d id n o t re c e iv e th e B o a rd ’s d e c isio n in t i m e t o m eetthe thi r ty - daydeadl i ne forfi l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew due t o the fa ctthatheT he B oar d’ s deci s i on nott o exer ci s e i t s s ua s pont e author i tyt o r eopen pr ocee di ngs 6 gener al l yi s unr evi ew abl e eve n w her e a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew has been f i l ed. See 5 w as on vaca t i on. B eca us e he w as on vaca t i on, he al s o fai l ed t o t i m el ycomm uni cat e the B oar d’ s deci s i on t o M art adi nat a. N ew couns el as s ert ed thatthe err orw as notdi s cover ed u n til h e re tu rn e d f

ro m v a c a tio n . O n J anuary28, 2008, the B oar d deni ed M art adi nat a’ s r eques tt o r ei s s ue the J ul y2, 2 0 0 7 d ec isi o n . N o ti n g that ith as o n ce rt ain o cc asio n s reissue d d ec isi o n s d u e to B o ard err or or adm i nis trat i ve p robl em s i nv olvi ng recei pt of i t s deci si on s, i n M art adinat a’s case n e ith e r n o n -re c e ip t n o r in e f f e c tiv e se rv ice w a s a lleg e d . T h e B o a rd f u rth e r sta ted : “W h ile the r es pondent ’ s couns el acc ept s r es pons i bi l i tyforr es pondent ’ s i nabi l i tyt o s eek j udi ci al r evi ew [of the J ul y2, 2007 B oar d deci s i on] , the r es pondentdoes notr ai s e a c l ai m of inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel, see M att er o f L o za d a, 19 I. & N . D ec . 6 3 7 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ). M a r t a d i n a t a h a s t i me l yp e t i t i o n e d f o rr e v i e w. We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a B o a rd d e c is io n d e n y in g a m o tio n to re is s u e a d e c is io n . J a h ja g a v . U .S . A tto rn e yG e n ., 5 1 2 F . 3 d 8 0 , 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). O u r rev iew is of co u rse li m it ed to the B o ard ’s Jan u ary 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 d e c i s i o n d e c l i n i n g t o r e i s s u e th e J u l y2 , 2 0 0 7 d e c i s i o n . T h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, f ile d o n F e b ru a ry 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , is n o t tim e ly w ith re s p e c t to th e J u ly 2 , 2 0 0 7 d e c is io n , 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) ( pr ovi di ng fora per i od of thi r tyday s i n w hi ch t o fi l e a pe t i t i on for r evi ew ) , and w e thus l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on that M a r t a d i n a t a ’ s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n w a s n o tt i m e l y f i l e d w i th i n 9 0 d a ys a s r e q u i r e d b y 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2). 6C ru z v . U .S . A tto rn e yG e n ., 4 5 2 F .3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); C a lle-V u jil e s v . A sh c ro f

t, 3 2 0 F . 3 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A s th e B o a rd n o ted , n e w c o u n se l’s in e f f e c tiv e n e ss h a s n o t b e e n a ss e rte d , eith e r w ith 7 r es pectt o t he l at e fi l i ng of the mot i on t o r eopen orthe fa i l ur e t o fi l e a t i m el ypet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oar d’ s J ul y2, 2007 deci s i on. W e doubtthats uch an a s s ert i on w oul d m ake a d if f e re n c e in a n ye v e n t, ho w e v e r, b e c a u se M a rta d in a ta s u f f e re d n o p re

ju d ice a s a re su lt of new couns el ’ s conduct . T he new evi dence s ubm i t t ed w i th hi s m ot i on t o r eopen di d not w arr antr eopeni ng pr ocee di ngs . M art adi nat a’ s m edi cal document at i on corr obor at ed i nj ur i es thatw er e neve ri n doubt , and hi s m other ’ s death cert i fi cat e es t abl i s hed onl yt he f a c t o f h e r d e a th , w h ic h w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s h o w a w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n . T hus , hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, even i f i thad bee n t i m el yfi l ed, di d notes t abl i s h p rim a fa c ie e lig ib ili tyf

o r re lief , se e G u o v . A sh c ro f

t, 38 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). It n e c e ss a rily fol l ow s thata t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of thatdeci s i on w oul d nothave be en s ucce s s ful eith er. 6 W e h a v e h e ld th a t: “B e c a u se n o sta tu te p ro v id e s th a t m o tio n s to re iss u e a re so lely w i thi n the [Boar d’ s ] di s cr et i on, w e pos s es s j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thei rdeni al forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” J ahj aga, 512 F. 3d at82 ( ci t i ng K han v. U . S. A t t orneyG en. , 448 F. 3d 226, 233 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . T he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons r equi r e the B oar d t o s erve i t s fi nal d e c is io n o n a n a lie n , 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (f ), o r t h e a lie n ' s a tto rn e yo f re c o rd , 8 C .F .R . § 1292. 5( a) . T he r egul at i ons defi ne “s ervi ce” as ei ther“phy s i cal l ypr es ent i ng orm ai l i ng a documentt o t he appr opr i at e partyorpart i es . ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 13. H er e, ther e i s no as s ert i on thatthe w r ong per s on w as s erved orthats ervi ce w as noteff ect ed i n the appr opr i at e w ay . N ew couns el ’ s vaca t i on l aps e does notpr ovi de us w i th a bas i s for concl udi ng thatthe B oar d abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on t o r ei s s ue i t s J ul y2, 2007 deci s i on. 7 F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .\