2005 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 10-21-2005 

# Rahimov 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 . 04-1799

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_2005

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 2005 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 ahimov v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 370. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/370A l bert o R . G onzal es i s s ubs t i tut ed forhi s pr edec es s or , J ohn A s hcr oft , as A t t orney * G en era l of

the U n it ed S tat es, pu rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 3 (c)(2). NOT 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 . 04- 1799

____________ UM E D R AHI M OV Pet i t i oner

v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l of the U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca * R es pondent

____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om the U ni t ed St at es D epartm entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 78 817 484

____________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

O ct ober20, 2005 B E FO R E : SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, V A N A N T W E R PE N and

A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: O ct ober21, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e p a rties , w e n e e d n o t re sta te th e f a c ts. A t issu e in th is c a se is w h e th e r th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) a n d th e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) err ed i n deny i ng Pet i t i onerR ahi m ov’ s M ot i on t o R eopen hi s r emoval p roc ee d ing s af

ter th e IJ e n tered a re m o v al ord er in a b sen ti a a g ains t R ah im o v . T h is C o u rt has j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen a r emoval pr ocee di ng forabus e of di s cr et i on. Shar darv. A s hcr oft , 382 F. 3d 318, 324 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “D iscreti o n aryd ec isi o n s o f th e B IA w il l no t be d istu rbe d u n less theyare found t o be ‘ arbi tr ary , i r r at i onal orcontr aryt o l aw . ’ ” Ti pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng So C hun C hung v. I N S, 602 F. 2d 608, 612 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ) . O ur r evi ew i s fur therconfi ned bythe natur e of the under l y i ng or der . O urr evi ew of an or der of r emoval ent er ed i n abs ent i a i s “conf i ned t o ( i ) the val i di tyof the not i ce pr ovi ded t o the al i en, ( i i ) the r eas ons forthe al i en’ s notatt endi ng the pr ocee di ng, and ( i i i ) w hetherornot th e a lie n is re m o v a b le .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )( 5 )( D ). A. A n I J m us tent eran or derof r emoval i n abs ent i a aga i ns tan al i en i f the al i en does notatt end a r emoval pr ocee di ng and i ti s “es t abl i s he[d] bycl ear , unequi vocal , and convi nci ng evi dence ” thatthe al i en i s r emovabl e and w as pr ovi ded w i th w r i t t en not i ce of th e p r o c e e d i n g . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( b ) ( 5 ) ( A ) . R a h i m o v d o e s n o tc o n t e s th i s r e m o v a b i l i ty, b u t in s te a d a rg u e s th a t h e d id n o t r e c e iv e n o tic e o f h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g .3

P u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (a ), an a lien f a c in g re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s is e n tit led to adequa t e not i ce of

the pr ocee di ng, i ncl udi ng s peci fi c i nform at i on aboutthe natur e of the pr ocee di ng, the l egal author i tyunderw hi ch the pr ocee di ng i s conduct ed, and s ever al others t atut or i l ydel i neat ed el ement s . 8 U . S. C . § 1229( a) ( 1) ( A ) - ( G ) . N ot i ce maybe gi ven in p e rs o n , o r i f

th is is im p ra c tic a l, th ro u g h s e rv ic e b yth e m a il to th e a lie n o r h is c o u n s e l. 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 (a)(1)& (2)(A ). O n N ovember6, 2001, R ahi m ov w as s erved w i th a not i ce of r emoval cont ai ni ng al l of the s t atut or i l yr equi r ed el ement s exce ptthe dat e and t i m e of the r emoval p ro c e e d in g . A lth o u g h th is n o tice in c o rre c tlylisted a n a d d re ss f o r R a h im o v in C in c in n a ti, O hi o, the addr es s i s uni m por t antbeca us e the not i ce w as per s onal l ys erved upon R ahi m ov a s pe r mi t t e d b y8 U. S. C. § 1 22 9( a ) ( 1) . O n J a nu a ry2, 20 02 , Rahi mov f i l e d wi th the I N S a F orm I- 83 0, “N oti ce t o E O IR : A l i en A dd res s, ” on w hich he report ed h i s address as 9 St el l a D r i ve i n C hur chvi l l e, Penns y l vani a. A pp. at155. R ahi m ov does notdi s put e that h e re sid e d a t th is a d d re ss a n d o n lyth is a d d re ss d u rin g th e tim e p e rio d a t issu e in th is pr ocee di ng. O n M ar ch 1, 2002, the I m m i gr at i on C our tnot i fi ed R ahi m ov thathi s M as t er C a len d a r h e a rin g h a d b e e n re sc h e d u led f o r A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 2 , at 9 :0 0 a .m . Id . at 1 5 4 . T h is not i ce, w hi ch al s o des cr i bed the cons equenc es fornotatt endi ng the pr ocee di ng, w as ma i l e d t o Ra h i mo v a th i s Ch u r c h v i l l e , P e n n s y l v a n i a a d d r e s s , i d . , a s p e r mi t t e d b y8 U. S . C. § 1229( a) ( 2) ( A ) . A l though R ahi m ov cl ai m s he neve rr ece i ved thi s not i ce, he off er ed no e v id e n c e to d isp u te th e a b o v e f a c ts, a n d w e c a n th e re f

o re o n lyc o n c lu d e th a t ad e q u a te4

n o ti ce w as se n t t o R ah im o v . T h u s, the u n d erly ing o rde r fo r rem o v al w as p rop er. B. H avi ng es t abl i s hed thatthe under l y i ng or derw as pr oper l yent er ed, w e mustnext d e t e r mi n e wh e th e rth e I J s h o u l d h a v e o r d e r e d th e r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s r e o p e n e d . An or derof r emoval gr ant ed i n abs ent i a mayonl ybe r es ci nded upon a mot i on t o r eopen i f the al i en demonstr at es ( 1) thathe w as i n Feder al orSt at e cus t odyand hi s fai l ur e t o appea r w as thr ough no faul tof hi s ow n, ( 2) he di d notr ece i ve ade quat e not i ce of the pr ocee di ng, o r ( 3 ) h is f

a ilu re to a p p e a r w a s b e c a u s e o f e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(C ). R a h im o v d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t h e w a s in c u sto d ya t th e tim e o f h is hear i ng, ther efor e, he i s ent i t l ed t o have hi s pr ocee di ng r eopene d onl yi f he de m ons tr at es thathe di d notr ece i ve not i ce of the hea r i ng orthatexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s pr event ed h im f ro m a tte n d in g th e h e a ri n g . Id . O n a m o tio n to re o p e n , the b u rd e n is o n th e a lien to d e m o n stra te th a t h e o r sh e d id notr ece i ve not i ce of

the pr ocee di ng. 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( C ) ( i i ) ( “[A ] n or derm aybe r es ci nded onl y. . . ( i i ) upon a mot i on t o r eopen f i l ed atanyt i m e i f the al i en demonstr at es thatthe al i en di d notr ece i ve not i ce i n acc or dance w i th par agr aph ( 1) or( 2) of s ect i on 239( a) [8 U SC S § 1229( a) ] . . . . ”) . Fur therm or e, the mot i on m us tbe “s uppor t ed by af fid av it s o r oth er e v iden ti arym aterial . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7)(B ). H ere , R ah im o v ’s m ot i on t o r eopen w as acc om pani ed onl ybyan uns w orn, thr ee- s ent ence s t at ementby R ahi m ov i n w hi ch he c l ai m s thathe neve rr ece i ved the not i ce of hear i ng. W e conc l ude5

thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdet erm i ned thatR ahi m ov fai l ed t o m eet h is b u rd e n o f

d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t h e d id n o t r e c e iv e n o tic e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s . L i kew i s e, R ahi m ov fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s pr event ed him from at t end i ng the rem ov al proceed i ng s. “T he term ‘excepti on al ci rcum st ances’ refer s t o ex cepti on al ci rcum st ances (such as ser i ou s i l l ness of the al i en o r s eri ou s i l l ness ordeath of the s pous e, chi l d, orpar entof the al i en, butnoti ncl udi ng l es s compel l i ng c irc u m sta n c e s) b e y o n d th e c o n tro l o f th e a lien .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (e )(1 ). R a h im o v ’s o n ly cl ai m i s thathe neve rr ece i ved not i ce of the hea r i ng. N otonl ydoes “l ack of not i ce” a p p e a r t o b e le s s c o m p e llin g th a n th o s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o th e rw is e d e e m e d “ e x c e p tio n a l,” buti t s s t atus as an i ndepende ntgr ound upon w hi ch an a l i en maybas e a mot i on t o r eopen s ugges t s thati tcannotbe cons i der ed an “ exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance ” as w el l . A s R ahi m ov pr es ent ed no otherevi dence of exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s pr event i ng hi s att endanc e att he re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA p ro p e rlyd e n ied h is a p p e a l. N o r a re w e p e rsu a d e d th a t R a h im o v w a s d e n ied d u e p ro c e ss . A s th e N in th C irc u it e x p lain e d , “[ d ]u e p ro c e ss , in d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s, ‘in c lu d e s th e rig h t to a f u ll an d f a ir hear i ng. ’ ” Sharm a v. I N S, 89 F. 3d 545, 548 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng G et ache w v. I N S, 25 F .3 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 5 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 )). “ P e tit io n e rs c a n n o t co m p lain o f a n o rd e r e n ter e d in abs ent i a, how ever , i f they‘ vol unt ar i l ychoos e[] nott o att end a de por t at i on hear i ng w hi ch m ayaff ect[them] a dver s el y . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. D ekerm enj i an, 508 F. 2d 812, 814 ( 9th C i r . 1974) ) ( al t er at i ons i n the or i gi nal ) . H er e, the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe6

governm entnot i fi ed R ahi m ov of hi s hear i ng and R ahi m ov di d notatt end; the I J di d not vi ol at e due pr oces s bypr ocee di ng i n hi s abs ence . I n concl us i on, w e not e thatal though R ahi m ov dedi cat ed more than the maj or i t yof hi s br i ef t o the mer i t s of hi s cl ai m s forr el i ef f r om r emoval , a mer i t or i ous cl ai m i s not gr ounds fora r ever s al . Forthi s r eas on, and thos e s t at ed above , the pet i t i on i s deni ed.