T he H onor abl e R obertH ol m es B el l , C h ief U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he * W es t ern D i s tr i ctof M i chi gan, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. Si m ul t aneous l yw i th the fi l i ng of the i ns t antpet i t i on fo r re vi ew , Q er axhi u fi l ed a 1 m ot i on fors t ayof r emoval
. T he courtdeni ed the mot i on fors t ayon Sept ember 2 3, 2005. Two d a y s b e f

o r e o r a l a r g u me n ti n th e i n s t a n tma t t e r , Qer a x h i u f i l e d a s e c o n d e me r g e n cy m o ti o n fo r st ayo f re m o v al. F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth in the co u rt ' s S ep tem b er 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 o rde r, and i n li g h tof the court ' s di s pos i t i on of the under l y i ng pet i t i on, Q er axhi u' s s econd mot i on fors t ayi s deni ed. N ot R ecom m ended f or Fu l l - T ext Pub l i cat i on F i l e N am e: 06a0839n. 06 F i l ed: N ovem ber 15, 2006 N o. 05- 4051 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT NE RI TA N QER AX HI U,

P et i t i oner, O n P et i t i on f or R evi ew O f an O rder of

t he B oard v . O f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A LB ER TO G O N Z A LE S, A tto r n e y G e n e r a l,

R esp o n d en t. _______________________________________/ B ef ore: B O G G S, C hi ef

Judge, B A T C H E L D E R , C i rcui t J u d g e, a n d B E L L , D i s t ri ct Judge. * P E R C U R I A M. Pet i t i onerN er i t an Q er axhi u s eeks r evi ew of a fi nal or der i s s ued by the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( "Boar d" or"B IA ") o n A ugus t3, 2005, w hi ch deni ed Q er axhi u' s m ot i on t o r eopen hi s i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , the pet i t i on forr evi ew i s deni ed. 1N o. 05- 4051 2

Q er axhi u v. G onz al esN o. 05- 4051 3

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es I. Pet i t i o n e r Qer a x h i u i s a c i t i z e n o f Al b a n i a who e n t e r e d th e Uni t e d St a t e s w i t hout i ns pect i on on O ct ober3, 1996, atD etr oi t , M i chi gan. O n A pr i l 11, 1997, Q er axhi u fi l ed for
as y l um . H e w as pl ace d i n to depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs and i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearon J une 17, 1997. I n hi s pet i t i on foras y l um , Q er axhi u al l eged that the D emocr at i c P arty , w hi ch w as t hen i n pow eri n A l bani a, had i m pr i s oned and a bus ed hi m forhi s pol i t i cal s peec h dur i ng the thr ee y ear s pr ece di ng h is im m igr at i on. H e al s o al l eged thathi s fami l yhi s t or i cal l yhad bee n per s ecut ed un d er the C om m uni s tr egi m e i n pow erunt i l 1992. A ft era ful l hear i ng on t he
m e r i t s o f

th e c a s e , th e I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e e n t e r e d a n o r a l d e c i s i o n d e n yi n g Q e r a x h i u 's appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of deport at i o n a n dv o l u n t a ryd e p a r tur e, and or der i ng Q er axhi u t o be deport ed t o A l bani a. I n deny i ng the cl ai m foras y l um , the I m m i gr at i on J udge f o u n d th a t Q e ra x h iu w a s n o t cr e d ib le a n d h a d n o t d e m o n stra ted p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a w e llfounded f

ear of futur e per s ecut i on fr om A l bani a. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge al s o concl uded that Q er axhi u w as n o t st atut or i l yel i gi bl e forvol unt arydepartur e. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ther efor e or der ed thatQ er axhi u be r emoved t o A l bani a. Q er axhi u appea l ed the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge t o the B I A
. O n M ar ch 24, 2003, the B oar d aff

i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on the I m m i gr at i on J udge' s or der
. Q er axhi u di d not fi l e a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of the B oar d' s deci s i on. O n A pr i l 19, 200 5 , Q er axhi u fi l ed a mot i on w i th the B I A t o r eopen r emoval pr ocee di ngs and fora s t ayof re m oval on the bas i s of cha nged countrycondi t i ons , att achi ngN o. 05- 4051 4

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es evi d e n c e th a to s t e n s i b l ywas p r e v i o u s l yu n a v a i l a b l e . Th a te v i d e n c e i n c l u d e d n u me r o us
new s paperarti cles, book extr act s , r eport s fr om the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e and A m n e styIn ter n a tio n a l, a s w e ll as a f f id a v its f ro m f a m ilym e m b e rs g ra n ted a sy lu m p rio r to Q e ra x h iu ' s B IA d e c isio n . T h ro u g h th e n e w lysu b m itt e d e v id e n c e , Q e ra x h iu a ttem p ted to
s how thatthe then- curr entSoci al i s tgovernm entw as engage d i n pr opaganda ai m ed at
r es t or i ng the r eput at i on of the form erC om m uni s tr egi m e thathad per s ecut ed hi s fami l y , and thatthe Soci al ist g o v ern m enthad a r ecor d of m i s tr eat i ng peac eful pr ot es t or s . H e cl ai m ed thatthe new evi dence ent i t l ed hi m t o a r eopeni ng of hi s cl ai m foras y l um orforr el i ef unde r A r t i cl e I I I of the C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. T he B I A deni ed Q er axhi u' s m ot i on t o r eopen by w ayof a de ci s i on i s s ued A ugus t3, 2005. T he B oar d r eci t ed the st andar ds for r eopeni ng a cas e base d on change d ci r cumst ance s
a n d e x p re ss ly f

o u n d th a t Q e ra x h iu d id n o t d e m o n stra te a n ye x c e p tio n e x c u sin g h is f a ilu re to f ile th e m o tio n to re o p e n w ith in 9 0 d a y s o f th e B o a rd ' s M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 d e n ial o f h is appl i cat i on fo r as y l um . T he B I A al s o found thatthe bac kgr ound evi dence s ubm i t t ed by Q e ra x h iu d id n o t su p p o rt th e c o n c lu sio n th a t c o n d iti o n s in A lb a n ia h a d c h a n g e d in re g a rd to hi s cl ai m thathe fa ced a n i ndi vi dual i zed thr eat of per s ecut i on. Fi nal l y , the B I A found that the af fi davi t s s ubm i t t ed byr el at i ves di d notm eet the r equi r ement of havi ng pr evi ous l ybeen unavai l abl e, s i nce the af fi ant s i n ques t i on arr i ved i n the countryw el l befor e the 2003 deci s i on. Qe r a x h i u f

i l e d th e i n s t a n tp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.N o. 05- 4051 5

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es II. T hi s courthas excl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval underSect i on 242( a) ( 1) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct , as amended bythe R eal I D A ctof 2005, 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 1) ( 2005)
. T he court , how ever , m ayexer ci s e i t s j ur i s di ct i o n o n lyover thos e m att er s r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on for r evi ew that has been t i m el yfi l ed w i thi n 30 day s of the f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. S e e Pr e ka

jv . I NS , 3 8 4 F
. 3 d 2 6 5 , 2 6 7 -68 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). A n or der of deport at i on becomes fi nal w hen i s s ued, i rr es pect i ve of w hethera mot i on t o r e o p e n o r r e c o n s id e r s u b s e q u e n tly is f ile d
. S e e S t o n e v . I

NS , 5 1 4 U. S. 3 8 6 , 3 9 5 ( 1 9 9 5) ( hol di ng thatthe fi l i ng of a mot i on t o r eopen orr econs i derdoes notaff ectthe fi nal i tyof an under l y i ng deport at i on or der )
. A s a cons equenc e, a partyw ho s eeks r eopeni ng or
re c o n s id e ra tio n m u s t f

ile s e p a ra te p e titio n s f

o r re v ie w w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f e a c h f in a l o rd e r. I

d. A partyw ho fai l s t o fi l e a t i m el y pet i t i on for r evi ew of an or der w ai ves appel l at e r evi ew of th a t o rd e r, a s th e s ta tu to ry tim e f o r f ilin g is b o th m a n d a to ry a n d ju ri s d ic tio n a l. I d. at405 ( ci t i ng Mis s our iv. Jenki ns , 4 9 5 U
. S
. 3 3 , 4 5 (19 9 0 )). I n th e i n s t a n tc a s e , Q e r a x h i u d i d n o tf i l e a t i m e l y p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w o f

th e B o a r d 's M arch 24 , 20 03 den i al of hi s app l i cat i on for asy l um and w i thh oldi ng of d epo rt at i on . A s a
r es ul t , thi s courtl acks juri sd ict i on t o cons i deranyi s s ues r ai s ed bythe B oar d' s M ar ch 24, 2003 deci s i on. T he court ' s r evi ew i n thi s m att er , ther efor e, i s l i m i t ed t o the B oar d' s deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen, i s s ued A ugus t3, 2005.N o. 05- 4051 6

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es III . In h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , Q e ra x h iu a r g u e s th a t th e B o a rd a b u se d its d isc re tio n in ref u sing to reo p en h is rem o v al p roc ee d ing s fo r tw o rea so n s. F ir st, h e c o n tend s tha t th e B IA
unr eas onabl y and i m pr oper l y concl uded t hat the mot i on t o r eopen w as unt i m el y . Second, he
ar gues tha tthe B I A ' s deci s i on deny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen c ons t i tut ed both an abus e of di s cr et i on and a vi ol at i on of due pr oces s byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de an adequa t e s t at ementof the
r eas ons forthe dec i s i on. A
. St andar ds of R evi ew U n d e r B IA re g u latio n s, a m o tio n to re o p e n "s h a ll n o t b e g ra n ted u n les s it a p p e a rs to the B oar d thatevi dence s oughtt o be offer ed i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d not hav e been dis cov ered or p res ented at the fo rm er heari ng . " A l labaniv. G onz al es , 402 F. 3d 6 6 8 , 6 7 5 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (c iti n g 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 )); s ee al s o Sako v. G onz al es , 434 F. 3d 857, 863 ( 6th C i r . 2006)
. M ot i ons t o r eopen a r emoval pr ocee di ng ar e w i thi n the br oad d is c re tio n o f

th e B IA
. IN

S v . D o h e rty , 5 0 2 U
. S
. 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 (19 9 2 ). S u ch m o ti o n s, h o w ev er,
ar e " di s favor ed forthe s ame r eas ons as ar e pet i t i ons forr ehea r i ng and mot i ons for a new t r i al
on the b asi s of ne w l ydis cov ered evidence. " I d. T hi s courtm ay rev iew the d eni al of a
m o tio n to re o p e n o n ly f

o r c le a r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . D o h e rty , 5 0 2 U .S
. a t 3 2 3 ; Ba la n iv . I NS , 6 6 9 F
. 2 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 1 (6th C ir
. 1 9 8 2 ). A rev iew ing co u rt m u st p o sses s a " d ef init e a n d firm
c o n v ictio n th a t th e c o u rt b e lo w c o m m itt e d a c lea r e rro r o f ju d g m e n t in th e c o n c lu sio n it reached upo n a w ei gh i ng of the r el evan tfact ors. " B alani , 669 F. 2d at1160. "' I n det erm i ni ng
w hetherthe B oar d abus ed i t s di s cr et i on, thi s C our t m us tdeci de w hetherthe deni al of [the]N o. 05- 4051 7

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es m ot i on t o r eopen . . . w as m ade w i thouta r at i onal expl anat i on, i nexpl i cabl ydepart ed fr om
es t a b l i s h e d p o l i c i e s , o rr e s t e d o n a n i mpe r mi s s i b l e b a s i s s u c h a s i n v i d i o u s d i s c r i mi nat i on againsta part i cularrace or gr ou p. ' " A l labani , 402 F. 3d at675 ( quot i ng B alani , 669 F. 2d at 1161)
. T he s cope of

thi s court ' s r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o cons i der at i on of the admi n ist rat i ve
re c o rd a n d th e d e c is io n o f th e B o a rd
. An s s a r i
- Gh a r a c h e da g hy v . I NS , 2 4 6 F .3 d 5 1 2 , 5 1 3 (6 th C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). M ot i ons t o r eopen or di nar i l ym us tbe fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of the dat e of the fi nal
a d m inistrati v e d ec isi o n in the p roc ee d ing so u g h t t o b e re o p en ed
. 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 (c)(2). T h e 9 0 -da y p eriod fo r f il ing a m o ti o n to reo p en is su b ject to n arro w ex ce p ti o n s: ( 1 ) w h ere the B IA reop ens t he p roceedings su a sp o n te ; ( 2) w her e the part i es agr ee t o r eopen the p r o c e e d i n g s ; ( 3 ) c h a n g e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s i n th e c o u n try o f n a t i o n a l i ty o f wh i c h th e r e i s n e w,
m at er i al evi dence thatcoul d not have been di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe t i m e of the or i gi nal pr ocee di ng; and ( 4) cert ai n in a b se n tia d e c is io n s . See 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 (a), (c)(3). W h i l e a mo t i o n t o r e o p e n s h o u l d n o tb e g r a n t e d u n l e s s th e p e t i t i o n e rma k e s a p r i ma fac i e s how i ng that the s t atut ory r equi r ement s for r el i ef have been m et , the B oar d r et ai ns the di s cr et i on t o denythe mot i on t o r eopen, even w her e a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng has been made. Yo u s i f v . I NS , 7 9 4 F
. 2 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 (6th C ir
. 1 9 8 6 ). B
. T i m el i ness A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, a m ot i on t o r eopen or di nar i l y m us t be fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of the
or derdeny i ng as y l um . 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 2( c) ( 2)
. T he B oar d' s or der aff i r m i ng the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J ud g e w as i s s ued M ar ch 24, 2003. Q er axhi u fi l ed hi s m ot i on t o r eopenN o. 05- 4051 8

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es m o re th a n tw o y e a rs la ter , o n A p ril 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e m o tio n th e re f o re w a s u n tim e ly u n les s it
m et on e o f th e e x ce p ti o n to the li m it ati o n s p eriod set fo rth in 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 (a) an d (c)(3). Q er axhi u ar gues tw o exce pt i ons t o the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . Fi r s t , he cont ends that the B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o r eopen the ca s e base d on change d ci r cumst ance s
w i thi n the countr yof nat i onal i ty , pur s uantt o 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) ( i i ) , w hi ch pr ovi des as foll ow s: (3 ) . . . T h e tim e a n d n u m e ric a l li m itatio n s s e t f o rth in p a ra g ra p h (c )(2 ) o f th is sect i on shal l no tapp l yt o a m oti on t o reope n p roceedings:

. . . ( i i ) T o appl yorr eappl yforas y l um orw i thhol di ng of depo rt ati o n bas ed on ch an g ed circu m stan ce s arisi n g in the co u n tryo f n ati o n ali tyo r i n the c o u n try t o w hi ch deport at i on has been or der ed, i f su ch ev i dence i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe pr evi ous h e a ri n g . . . . I d. Q er axhi u ar gued thatthe el ect i on of t he S oci al i s t Par tyi n A l bani a r es ul t ed i n a cha nge i n countrycondi t i ons w arr ant i ng r eopeni ng of t he proc eedi ng. H e at t ache d t o hi s m ot i on a
v a rie tyo f

su p p o rtin g d o c u m e n ts. A m o n g th o se d o c u m e n ts, h e in c lu d e d n e w sp a p e r re p o rts f ro m Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 5 , w h ich d isc u ss e d a c tio n s tak e n b y th e S o c ialist g o v e rn m e n t to re h a b ili tate the re put at i on of E nver H oxha, the for m er C om m uni s t di ct at or of A l bani a. H e al s o pr es ent ed
new s paperart i cl es fr om February 2004 about an i nci denti n w hi ch the Soci al i s tgovernm ent po l i ce al l eged l y detai ned and m i streat ed peacefu l prot est ors and fi red bu l l et s ov er pr otes t ers ' heads
. I n addi t i on, he i ncl uded a co p y o f a February24, 2004 St at e D epart m entr eportonN o. 05- 4051 9

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es A l bani a and the 2001 thr ough 2004 r eport s of A m nes tyI nt ernat i onal and the O r gani zat i on forSecur i tyand C ooper at i on i n E ur ope, al l r el at i ng t o gener al countrycondi t i ons , i ncl udi ng
re p o rts o f

th e m istre a tm e n t o f

c e rta in d e tain e e s in A lb a n ia. F in a lly , h e in c lu d e d a f f id a v its from rel at i ves and neighbo rs rel at i ng to h is a rres t s und er the D em ocrat i c P arty . T hese af fid av it s all relate t o ev en ts th at oc cu rred b ef o re Q era x h iu left A lb a n ia, an d n o n e w ere di r ect ed t o t he pr oof of c hanged c ondi t i ons s i nce Q er axhi u' s departur e. T he Bo a r d concl uded thatQ er axhi u fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe af fi davi t s s ubm i t t ed
w i th hi s m ot i on t o r eopen w er e unava i l abl e atthe t i m e of the B oar d' s init ial d eni al , as
r equi r ed by8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) ( i i )
. Q eraxhi u ar gues thatthe af fi davi t s of fa m i l yand
n e ig h b o rs w e re u n a v a ilab le to h im b e c a u se o f d if f icu lti e s in c o m m u n ica tin g w ith p e rso n s in A l bani a. Q er axhi u' s father , i n part i cul ar , aver s that he w as not y et pr es ent i n thi s countr yat th e tim e o f

h is s o n ' s in iti a l h e a rin g . A s th e B o a rd c o n c lu d e d , h o w e v e r, th e a f f id a v its sh o u ld h av e b ee n av ail ab le t o Q era x h iu b ef o re th e B o ard ' s d en ial o f his ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum
. In part i cul ar , Q er axhi u' s fa ther, m otherand br otherw er e gr ant ed as y l um i n thi s countr yon J anuary6, 2003, befor e the B oar d' s deni al , and the fa ther' s aff i davi ti t s el f dec l ar es thathe
arr i ved i n thi s countr yi n 1999. I n addi t i on, the i nform at i on pr ovi ded i n the af fi davi t s i s not
m a t e r i a l t o th e q u e s t i o n o f c h a n g e d c o u n try c i r c u m s t a n c e s o c c u rr i n g a f t e rth e B o a r d 's M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 o r d e r . T h e B o a rd ' s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e a f f id a v its w e re n e ith e r p re v io u sly
u n a v a ilab le n o r m a ter ial is b o th re a so n a b le a n d a su f f icie n t g ro u n d f

o r d e n y in g a m o tio n to
re o p e n . See Al labani , 402 F. 3d at675 ( ci t i ng I N S v. A budu , 4 8 5 U
. S
. 9 4 , 1 0 7 -08 (19 8 8 )).N o. 05- 4051 10

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es F u rth e r, th e re m a in d e r o f th e in f o rm a tio n su p p lied b yQ e ra x h iu in h is m o tio n to
r eopen a ddr es s es the s i tuat i on exi s t i ng i n A l bani a underthe rul e of the Soci al i s tPar ty , w hi ch t ook offi ce onl yaft erhi s departur e fr om the count ry . Q er axhi u' s or i gi nal cl ai m of as y l um
w as bas ed on ac t i ons t aken a gai ns thi m bym ember s of the D emocr at i c Party , no t the S o c ialist P a rty . W h ile the n e w e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e e x iste n c e o f c e rta in g e n e ra lize d a n tid e m o c ra tic a c tio n s b yth e S o c ialist P a rty a f ter it b e c a m e th e ru lin g p a rty , Q e ra x h iu f a iled to
s h o w a n yp e rs o n a l r is k o f p e rs e c u tio n . S e e Ha r c h e n ko v . I NS , 3 7 9 F
. 3 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 0 (6th C ir
. 2004) ( m er e as s ert i on of pos s i bl e per s ecut i on i s i nadequa t e t o s uppor ta cha nged condi t i on; i ns t ead, a par tym us tpr ovi de " s peci fi c i nform at i on s how i ng a r eal thr eatof i ndi vi dual p e rse c u tio n ") ; se e a lso A b a y v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 6 8 F
. 3 d 6 3 4 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ) Pe rko v i c v . I NS , 33 F .3 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 0 -2 1 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); Ko ta s zv . I NS , 3 1 F
. 3 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 1 -52 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ); 8 C
. F. R
. § 1208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( A )
- ( B ) ( i n or dert o demonstr ate a w el l
- founded f earof pr os ecut i on , an ali en m us ts how ei therthat"[ h] e w oul d be s i ngl ed outper s onal l yfor p e rse c u tio n ," o r th a t "[ h ]e h a s a re a so n a b le f e a r of p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se o f

[ h is] m e m b e rsh ip in a g ro u p su b

jec t to a ' p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n .' ") . T h e B o a rd ' s c o n c lu sio n in th is
r egar d ther efor e i s ampl ys uppor t ed. I n the al t ernat i ve, Q er axhi u ar gues that the B oar d coul d and s houl d have a ct ed under 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 (a) to reo p en the m att er su a sp o n te , bas ed on the exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s p re se n ted in th e c a se . In p a rticu lar , h e a rg u e s th a t h is f o rm e r atto rn e y , w h o w a s s u b se q u e n tly d i s b a rr e d , r e n d e r e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e b y f

a i l i n g t o a d v i s e Q e r a x h i u o f th e B o a r d 's M ar ch 24, 2003 deci s i on, thereb y pr event i ng Q er axhi u fr om fi l i ng a t i m el ypet i t i on forN o. 05- 4051 11

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es r evi ew i n thi s court . H e al s o as s ert s that , gi ven hi s hist o ry of per s ecut i on i n A l bani a, t he gr antof as y l um t o the r emai nderof hi s fami l y , and the fa ctthath e n o w h as t w o m i nor chi l dr en w ho ar e ci t i zens of the U ni t ed St at es , the B oar d s houl d hav e r eopene d the proceed i ng on pu rel yhu m anit ari an g round s. A l though Q er axhi u s ugges t s thatth e B o ard ' s r efus al t o r eopen the ca s e su a sp o n te
s houl d be re vi ew ed for abus e of di s cr et i on, thi s courthas hel d that"[ t ] he dec i s i on w hether t o i nvoke su a sp o n te a u th o rity is co m m itt e d to th e u n f e ttere d d isc re tio n o f th e B IA " an d is
n o t s u b je c t to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . H ar chenko , 379 F. 3d at410- 11 ( ci t i ng L u is v . I NS , 196 F. 3d 3 6 , 4 0 ( 1 st C ir. 1 9 9 9 )); s ee al s o R andhaw a v. G onz al es , N o. 04- 4006, 2006 W L 1623307,
* 1 (6 th C ir
. J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 6 ). H ar chenko aff

i r m ed the pr i nci pl e that"r evi ew i s nott o be had if th e sta tu te is d ra w n so th a t a c o u rt w o u ld h a v e n o m e a n in g f u l sta n d a rd a g a in st w h ich to j ud ge the agen cy ' s ex erci se o f dis cret i on . " I d. at411 ( quot i ng Heckl erv. C haney , 47 0 U. S. 821, 830 ( 1985) )
. W e ther efor e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ' s deci s i on nott o r eopen the p roceedings su a sp o n te . M or eover , even i f thi s courthad j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ' s di s cr et i on under 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (a ) to d e c lin e to re o p e n a p ro c e e d in g , th e m a tter is n o t p ro p e rlyb e f o re th is
c o u rt. In h is m o tio n to re o p e n b e f o re th e B IA , Q e ra x h iu d id n o t ra ise th e iss u e o f h is
couns el ' s i neff

ect i venes s , and he di d notr eques tthat the B I A exer ci s e i t s author i tyt o r eopen under8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 2( a)
. E xhau sti on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i s a j ur i s di ct i onal p re re q u is ite to th is c o u rt ' s c o n s id e ra tio n o f a c h a lle n g e to a f in a l o rd e r o f

d e p o rt a tio n . See H a sa n v . A sh c ro

ft , 397 F. 3d 417, 419 ( 6th C ir
. 2005)
. "[ I ] n an appe al fr om an or derofN o. 05- 4051 12

Q er axhi u v. G onz al es r emoval , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew onl ythos e cl ai m s as t o w hi ch the al i en has exhaus t ed h is adm i ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , thati s , thos e cl ai m s ' pr oper l ypr es ent ed t o the B I A and
con si dered o n thei r m eri t s. ' " I d. ( quot i ng R am an iv . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 8 F
. 3 d 5 5 4 , 5 6 0 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 )); see al

so P e rko v ic , 33 F. 3d at 619; 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( d) ( 1)
. B eca us e Q er axhi u di d not rai se hi s cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve assi st ance of co un sel or r equ estexerci se of t he B IA ' s s ua sp o n te author i ty t o r eopen under 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003( a) , the i s s ues ar e not exhaus t ed and ar e not p r o p e r l yb e f

o r e th i s c o u r to n r e v i e w. I n s um , Q er axhi u fai l ed t o demonstrate anyexce pt i on t o the 90- dayper i od of lim itatio n s f

o r f ili n g a m o tio n to re o p e n . T h e B o a rd th e re f o re p ro p e rlyc o n c lu d e d th a t h is
m ot i on t o r eopen w as t i m e- barr ed. I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , Q er axhi u' s pet i t i on for r evi ew of t he B I A ' s A ugus t 3, 2005 order i s DENI ED
. Q eraxhi u' s m oti on for em ergencyst ayof rem ov al al so i s DENI ED
.