2004 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 4-19-2004 

# W iewiorsk i 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 . 02-3860

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . 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
" W iew ior ski v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 817. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/817NOT PRE CEDENT IAL THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 02-3860

___________ BO GD AN WIE WIO RSK I, Petitioner
v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL

OF THE UNITED STATES

___________ APPEAL FROM THE BO ARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS (No. A77 050 592)

___________ ARG UED JANU ARY 26, 2004 BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, F UE NT ES , and ST AP LE TO N, Circu it Judges . (Fil ed April 19, 2004)

___________ John D. Perez, Esq. (Argued) 2 nd Floor 41-51 Wilson Avenue Newark, NJ 07105

Counsel for Petiti oner RussellJ.E. Verby , Esq. (Argued) Jocely n L. Wright, Esq.1. Bec au se th e BI A af fi rme d the IJ ’s de ci si on unde r i ts st re aml in in g r eg ul at io ns , w e rev iew the I J’s d ecis ion on a ppe al. Dia v. Ash croft , 353 F.3d 228, 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). We revi ew the IJ’ s findi ngs of fact to ensure t hat the y ar e support ed by s ubstant ial evid enc e. Id. at 24 7. W e ex ercis e ple nar y revie w o f the IJ’s le gal c onc lusio ns. Valansi v. Ash croft , 278 F.3d 203, 207 (3d Cir. 200 2). 2 Willi am C. Minick, Esq. United States Department of Justi ce Office of Immigration Lit igati on PO Box 878 Ben Franklin St ation Washington, DC 20044

Counsel for Respondent

___________

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge .

The Imm igration Judg e (“IJ” ) den ied B ogd an W iewio rski’s m otion to terminate removalproceedi ngs and the Board of Immigrat ion Appeals ( “BIA”) affir med with out o pinion . Wie wio rski ap peals. B ecau se w e agre e w ith the IJ th at W iewio rski did not present evidence of his prima faci e eligibili ty for amnesty

under Secti on 245A of the Immi gr at io n an d Nat io nal it yAct , we wil l a ffirm. 1

I. Wiewiorski, a nati ve of Poland, entere d the Unite d States without being admitt ed or parol ed. The date of Wiewiorski’ s entr y i s unclear

and is of ce ntral3

importanc e in thi s appeal. The Government initially al leged that Wiewiorskientere d the United States in 1990. Wiewiorski r esponded by clai ming, i n his moti on to ter minate, that he enter ed in 1984. Other evide nce showed Wiewiorski was pr esent in the Unite d States in D ece mb er 1 982 .

On M ay 30, 19 99, the Go vern men t serve d W iewio rski w ith a N otice to Appear that

alle ged he was an ali en present in the United State s without being admit

ted or paro led. W iewio rski ad mitted that he wa s sub ject to rem oval b ut mo ved to termin ate his
remo val pro ceed ings b ased on an amn esty applic ation h e claim ed to h ave s ubm itted in late 1989 or early 1990. Based on Wiewiorski’ s failure to pr esent s uffici ent evi dence that he had actual ly

applie d for amnesty , or t hat he was el igibl e for te mporary resi dent stat us under that progr am, the I J denied t he motion. II. Wie wio rski arg ues th at the IJ c om mitted error b y denying h is mo tion to term inate and that t he B IA erre d by a ffir min g th at de cisio n.

Un der S ection 245 A o f the IN A (“ Sectio n 24 5A ”), an a lien w ho is otherwis e out of st atus i n this country is el igibl e for te mporary resi dent st atus i f he or she sati sfies severalcrit eria. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a( a). One ess entia l quali ficat ion is that t he ali en “establ ish that he ent ered the United Stat es before J anuary 1, 1982, and that he has
re si dedcon ti nuo uslyinth e Uni te d St at es inan unl awfu l s tatu s s in ce s uchdat e. ” 8 U. S. C. 125 5a( a)(2 )(A ).4 Wie wio rski m oved to term inate h is rem oval p rocee ding s base d on his claim that he file d an appli cati on to take advantage of Section 245A. In or der to s ucceed on such a motion, Wiewiorski must establish his prima faci e eligibili ty for the r elie f provided under

the amnesty pr ogram. 8 U.S. C. § 1255a(e)( 2). The IJ correctly

found that Wiewiorski fa iled to establ ish such e ligibili ty . There i s simpl y no evi dence that Wiewiorski entered the United States before J anuary 1, 1982. At be st, and ignoring Wiew iorski’s own claim that he enter ed in 1984, a letter from W iewiorski’s past emp loyer sho ws th at he w as pre sent in th e U nited S tates in D ecem ber 1 982 . This is almost a f

ull year too l ate t o sati sfythe requirements of Sec tion 245A and, theref ore, t he IJ was corr ect i n denyi ng Wiewiorski’ s motion t o terminate.

The BIA was also well within it s discretion in affirmi ng the IJ ’s deci sion without opinion. Si tting en banc , thi s Court re centl y hel d that t he BIA’s affir

mance wit hou t op inio n pr oce dur e do es n ot v iolat e an alien ’s du e pr oce ss rig hts. Dia , 353 F.3d at 238 . Th us, W iew iorsk i’s ar gum ents to th e co ntra ry are d ispo sed of b y that h old ing . Wiewiorski’ s only

remaini ng argument i s that the BIA erred by

using i ts affirmance without opinion procedur e in thi s part icular case bec ause, ac cording t o Wiewiorski, the IJ ’s de ci si on c ontai ne d no n- ha rml es s e rr or . H owe ve r, ba se d onour ab ove an al y si s, we find no error in t

he IJ’s decisi on. Accordingly, the BIA did not e rr by affirmi ng the decisi on. Fo r the for ego ing reas ons , we wil l aff irm t he d ecis ion of th e B IA .