2008 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 11-14-2008 

# V ujic ic v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-4487

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" V ujic ic v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 231. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/231NOT 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- 4487

___________ ZI VAN VUJ I CI C; DAV ORKA V UJ I CI C, P eti ti o n ers
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 os . A 29 756 205; A 70 866 762) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on O ct ober15, 2008
B efor e: M cK 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: N ovember 14, 2008)

O P I N I O N

__________2

P ER CURI AM Z i van V uj i ci c i s a nat i ve of Serbi a. H i s w i fe, D avor ka V uj i ci c i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen
o f S lo v enia. T heyenter ed the U nit ed S t at es i n 1 98 9, w i t h au t ho ri zat i on t o rem ai n fo r s ix
m ont hs , butover s t ay ed thei radmi s s i on per i od. I n J ul y1994, t he pet i t i oners w er e cha r ged
w i t h depor t abi l i t ypur s uantt o for m erI m m igrat i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) § 241( a) ( 1) ( B ) [8 U
. S. C
. § 1231( a) ( 1) ( B ) ]
. T heyappl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of
r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tTo rtu r e ( “ CA T” )
. The I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) d e n i e d r e l i ef. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed t he I J ’ s deci s i on i n M ay1997. I n J anuary20 0 0, t he pet i t i oner s fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen bas ed upon al l eged c hanged c ount r ycondi t i ons . T he B I A deni ed the m ot i on on J anuary23, 2 0 0 3
. I n Sept ember 2004, t he pet i t i oner s m oved t he B I A t o r ei s s ue i t s deci s i on, al l egi ng t he B oar d fai l ed t o m ai l not i ce of i t s J anuary2003 deci s i on t o t hei rat t or ney ’ s new addr es s . T he B I A deni ed the mot i on t o reissue i n J anuary2005, not i ng t hatt he r ecor d di d notcont ai n a change of addr es s for m , m ai l r etur ned as undel i ver abl e, oranyevi den ce of admi ni s t r at i ve
err or . T he pet i t i oner s fi l ed a p eti ti on forr evi ew , w hi ch w e deni ed on A pr i l 6, 2006. See V uj i ci c v. A t t or neyG ener al , 173 Fed. A ppx. 993 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. I n ouropi ni on, w e s t at ed t hatt her e i s n o r eas on w hyt he B I A has an obl i gat i on t o r ei s s ue a de ci s i on w her e i thas fol l o w ed it s ow n pr ocedur es . H er e the B oar d has fol l ow ed the pr ocedur es out l i ned i n t he3

r egul at i ons and pr act i ce manual bym ai l i ng not i ce of i t s d ec is i on t o couns el ’ s addr es s of
r ecor d- t he addr es s pr ovi ded on t he onl y For m E O I R
- 27 ent er ed i n pet i t i oner s ’ fi l e. C ouns el di d notcompl y w i t h t he B I A ’ s pr ocedur e foraddr es s change s . H e di d notfi l e an a m ended For m E O I R
- 27, and furt her , he di d notw r i t e t o t he B I A di r ect l yt o advi s e t hem of hi s change
o f a d d r e s s . I n s t e a d , h e me r e l y c o p i e d t h e Boa r d o n a c h a n g e o f a d d r e s s n o t i ce s ent t o t he pet i t i oner s . G i ven thatpet i t i oner s’ c o u n sel fai l ed t o pr oper l ychange hi s addr es s w i t h t he B I A , i tw as hi s err ort hatr es ul t ed i n t he fa i l ur e t o r ece i ve not i ce of t he B I A deci s i on. I d. at996. A ccor di ngl y , w e concl uded thatt he B I A w as w i t hi n i n i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he pet i t i oner s ’ m ot i on t o r ei s s ue. I d. T he pet i t i oner s fi l ed anotherm ot i on t o r eopen a nd r ei s s ue i n M ay2007. T hi s m ot i on
w as based o n M at t er of E l ezi , an un pu bli shed B IA decis i on i nv olvi ng on e of the peti t i on ers ’
c o u n se l’s o th e r c lien ts. I n M a tter o f E lez i, th e B IA e x e rc ise d its su a sp o n te a u th o rityto
r ei s s ue a de ci s i on t hatappar ent l yhad notbeen r ece i ved bycouns el
. I n N ovember 2007, t he B oard d en ie d t he pet i t i oner s ’ m ot i on t o r eopen a nd r ei s s ue, not i ng t hatV uj i ci c, 173 Fed. A ppx. 993, “i s t he bi ndi ng l aw of t he cas e and r efl ect s t her e w as no err ori n [the] deni al of t he [f i r s t ] m ot i on [t o r ei s s ue]
. ” T he B oar d fur t hernot ed thatM at t erof El ezi has no bi ndi ng
e f f e c t a n d in v o lv e d “ a n e rr o r w ith th e C le rk ’s o f f ic e in u p d a tin g th e f

ile w ith a n e w a d d re s s ,”
a f a c t ab se n t in th e p e tit io n e rs’ c a se . T h e B IA a ls o d e c lin e d to e x e rc ise its su a sp o n te author i t yt o r eopen. Fi nal l y , t he B I A found thatt he pet i t i o n ers p rese n t ed no evi dence of change d coun tr y co n d it i ons t hatw oul d w arr antan exc ept i on t o t he t i m e and number4

lim ita tio n s o n m o tio n s to re o p e n . T he pet i t i oner s , t hr ough couns el , fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. T he deni al of a m ot i on t o r eopen i s r evi ew ed for abus e of di s cr et i on. See Lu v. A s hcr oft , 259 F .3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). A s th e S u p re m e C o u r t h a s sta ted , the re g u latio n s “ p lain ly di s favor ” s uch mot i ons . I N S v. A budu, 485 U . S. 94, 110 ( 1988)
. T hus , i n or dert o s ucce ed on t he pet i t i on forr evi ew , t he pet i t i oner s m us tul t i m at el ys how t hatt he di s cr et i onarydeci s i on
w as s om ehow arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . See Ti pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ). T he pet i t i oner s ar e es s ent i al l y r el i t i gat i ng t he i s s ue r ai s ed and r ej ect ed i n t hei rpr i or pet i t i on forr evi ew , namel y , w hethert he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t hei rm ot i on to reissu e it s Jan u ary2 0 0 3 d ec isi o n . T h e o n lyd iffe ren ce is th at i n this case the p eti ti o n ers relyo n M att er o f E lezi, a re ce n t, u n p u b li sh ed B IA d ec isi o n . In p arti c u la r, th e p eti ti o n ers
a rg u e th a t th e B IA sh o u ld re iss u e its p rio r d e c isio n b e c a u se it g ra n ted a m o tio n to re iss u e in M a tter o f E lez i. B u t, a s the B o a rd n o ted , this c a se is d istin g u ish a b le f ro m E lez i. In E lez i, th e re c o rd in d ica ted th a t th e B IA h a d re c e iv e d a lette r f ro m c o u n se l re q u e stin g th a t h is addr es s be updat ed i n r ecor ds of t he C l er k’ s off i ce. N o s uch l et t erappea r s i n t he pr es ent
recor d. S ee V uji ci c, 17 3 F ed. A pp x. at 99 6 n. 2 (di st i ng uis hing, on si m i l ar grou nd s, t he case of “anot her of counse l ’ s cl i ent s i n w hi ch the B oar d agr eed t o r ei s s ue a de ci s i on t hathad bee n
m ail ed to co u n sel’s fo rm er a d d ress.”). U n d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s, w e c o n clud e tha t th e B IAT o th e e x te n t th a t th e p e tit io n e rs a lleg e th a t th e B IA in c o rre c tlyre f u se d to su a sp o n te 1 r eopen the pr ocee di ngs , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on. See C al l e- V uj i l es v. A s hcr oft , 320 F. 3d 472, 47 5 (3d C i r. 20 03 ). T h ere i s al so no err or i n the B IA ’s determ i nati on t hat the p et i t i on ers ’ m ot i on t o r eopen i s t i m e- and number
- barr ed , an d t hatno exce pt i on t o t hos e l i m i t at i ons ex ist s. S ee 8 C
. F . R . § 1 0 0 3
. 2 3 (b)(4 )(i ). 5 pr oper l ydeni ed the pet i t i oner s ’ m ot i on t o r eopen a nd r ei s s ue. 1 F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.