2007 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 Third C ir c uit 2-8-2007 

# J oh ar v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2223

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2007 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 " J o h ar v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1641. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007/1641NOT 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 . 06- 2223

________________ J I TE NDER S I NGH J OHA R, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r 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 75- 363- 913) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H e n ryD o g in Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February7, 2007 B efore: Judg es R end el l , V an A ntw erpen an d C ow en, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed February8, 2007)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM I. J ite n d e r S in g h J o h a r, a S ik h a n d c itiz e n o f In d ia , e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s in 1 9 9 5 . B yw a yo f

a N o tice to A p p e a r iss u e d in Ja n u a ry1 9 9 8 , Jo h a r c o n c e d e d h is re m o v a b ili ty2

f o r h a v in g sta y e d b e y o n d th e p e rio d a u th o riz e d a n d th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e d e n ied h is a p p lica tio n f

o r a sy lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. T h e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s ed J ohar ’ s appea l . I n 2002, the B I A deni ed J ohar ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs . I n 2005, the B I A deni ed J ohar ’ s s econd mot i on t o r eopen a s t i m e and num berbarr ed. I n February2006, J oharfi l ed a thi r d m ot i on t o r eopen, s eeki ng a r emand t o the I m m i gr at i on J udge foradj us t m entof s t atus bas ed on hi s appr oved I - 140 pet i t i on for a lie n w o rk e r. T h e B IA d e n ie d th e m o tio n a s n u m b e r b a rr e d u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . J o h a rf

i l e d th i s t i me l yp r o s e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 5) . T he onl yi s s ue bef or e us is th e B IA ’s F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 6 o rd e r d e n y in g J o h a r’ s th ir d m o tio n to re o p e n . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(1 ) (r eq u ir ing a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew to b e f il ed w ith in thirtyd ay s o f th e B IA ’s or der ) . W e 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, w h ere b yw e w il l r ev erse the B IA ’s de cisi o n o n lyif i t i s “a rbitrary , irrati o n al, o r co n tr ary to law . ” F il

ja v. G o n za les, 4 4 7 F . 3 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A p e titio n e r i s g e n e ra lly lim ite d to f ilin g o n e m o tio n to re o p e n . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . J oharfi l ed tw o pr evi ous m ot i ons t o r eopen, and thus i s num er i cal l ybarr ed fr om fi l i ng anotherm ot i on unl es s he s at i s fi es one of the exc ept i ons t o the r egul at i on. See id . Jo h a r’s p e n d in g a p p lica tio n f o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s d o e s n o t p ro v id e a n e x c e p tio n to the one mot i on rul e. See B hi s ki v. A s hcr oft , 373 F. 3d 363, 371 ( 3d C i r . 2004)3

(r e c o g n iz in g th a t p u rs u a n t to In re V e la rd e -P a c h e c o , 2 3 I & N . D e c . 2 5 3 (B IA 2 0 0 2 ), a m o tio n to re o p e n f

o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s m a yn o t b e g ra n ted if , inte r a lia, th e m o tio n is num er i cal l ybarr ed) . T o the ext entJ ohari s s eeki ng t o r e- l i t i gat e hi s as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval cl ai m s , he does notpr ovi de anyevi dence of cha nged c irc u m sta n c e s in In d ia, a n d th u s d o e s n o t sa tisf yth e e x c e p tio n f

o r a c h a n g e in c i r c u ms t a n c e s a r i s i n g i n th e c o u n tryt o wh i c h d e p o r t a t i o n h a s b e e n o r d e r e d . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) . T he otherexce pt i ons t o the numer i cal bars etforth i n the r egul at i ons a re c le a rl yn o t a p p lic a b le . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 3 ). A c c o rd in g ly, th e B IA d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to re o p e n . We wi l l th e r e f

o r e d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.