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 12-29-2005 

# B are nb oy 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 . 05-4562

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 author i 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 " B ar e nbo y v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 32. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/32B PS-57 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 . 05- 4562

_____________ AL E XANDE R B AR E NB OY, A ppel l ant

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES; S E CR E T AR Y OF DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y;

W A R D E N , H u d so n C o u n tyC o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty

______________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- 02956) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

______________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

N ovember23, 2005 B efore: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and B E C K E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

(F il ed D ec em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ P E R C UR I AM A l exande rB ar enboyappea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , di s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus as s econd or2

s ucce s s i ve. B ar enboyhas al s o fi l ed a mot i on forr el eas e on bai l pendi ng appea l . Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC ourt ’ s j udgm entand w i l l denythe mot i on forr el eas e. B ar enboyw as bor n i n t he M ol davi an Sovi etSoci al i s tR epubl i c, w hi ch no l onger e x ists, h a v in g b e c o m e th e in d e p e n d e n t R e p u b lic o f M o ld o v a in A u g u st 1 9 9 1 . C IA W o rld F a c tb o o k , h ttp ://w w w .cia .g o v /cia /p u b lica tio n s/f a c tb o o k /g e o s/m d .h tm l. B ar enboyent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es as a r efuge e i n 1992. A boutt en y ear s l at er , he w as convi ct ed of a drug cr i m e and w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . A n I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) deni ed B ar enboy ’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and def err al of r emoval under th e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re , a n d o rd e re d h im re m o v e d to M o ld o v a . O n A ugus t18, 2004, 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. I n D ece m ber2004, t he M ol dovan Em bas s yi nform ed the U . S. I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( I C E ) t hatB ar enboyw as nota ci t i zen of M ol dova, butthathe coul d appl yforci t i zens hi p, bas ed on hi s bi r t h i n M ol davi a. T he C ons ul i ndi cat ed thathe w oul d onl yforw ar d an appl i cat i on forci t i zens hi p upon w r i tt en r eques tfr om B ar enboy h im s e lf. IC E p re p a re d a le tte r f o r B a re n b o y ’s s ig n a tu re , re q u e s tin g th e a p p lic a tio n . B ar enboys i gned the l et t er , butaft erhi s s i gnatur e adde d t he w or ds “s i ng [s i c] undert he pr ot es t . ” The depor t at i on offi cerbel i eved thatthe M ol dovan Em bas s yw oul d notacc ept su c h a lette r, an d d id n o t se n d it. T h e d e p o rta tio n o f f ice r in f o rm e d B a re n b o yo f

h is ob l i gati on t o co op erat e i n ap ply i ng for travel do cum ents .T h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t th e p e tit io n w a s a lso p re m a tu re , as it w a s f iled o n ly 1 f o rty -o n e d a y s a f

ter th e re m o v a l o rd e r b e c a m e f in a l. 3 I n Sept ember2004, B ar enboyfi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , ar gui ng t hatt her e w as no l i kel i hood of hi s r emoval i n t he for es eea bl e futur e and thathi s det ent i on w as t her efor e i m pr operunderZ advy das v. D avi s , 533 U . S. 678, 701 ( 2001) ( hol di ng t hat p re su m p tiv e lyre a so n a b le p e rio d to d e tain a n a lien b e y o n d th e re m o v a l p e rio d is s ix m ont hs ) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed hi s ar gum ent , fi ndi ng thatB ar enboyhad “c aus ed the cont i nued det ent i on, ” and thatunderthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , the G overnm entw as author i zed t o ext end the r emoval per i od w her e the “a l i en fa i l s orr efus es t o m ake t i m el yappl i cat i on i n good fai t h fortr avel orot herdocument s nece s s aryt o t he a l i e n ’ s d e p a r tu r e . . . . ” Di s t r i c tCo u r to r d e r , M a r c h 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ( q u o t i n g 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 3 1 (a)(1)(C )). 1 On J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 5 , Ba r e n b o yf i l e d a s e c o n d h a b e a s p e t i t i o n i n th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t . He agai n ar gued thathi s r emoval i n t he for es eea bl e futur e w as unl i kel y , butpr ovi ded no su b stan ti ati o n fo r th e a sserti o n , asid e f rom h is attorn ey ’s st atem en ts. T h e D istri ct C o u rt i s s ued an or dert o s how caus e w hyt he pet i t i on s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed as a s econd or su cc essiv e p eti ti o n . A fter rec eivin g resp o n ses a n d h o lding a h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt d ism iss e d th e p e tit io n w ith p re ju d ice , fin d in g th a t B a re n b o y ’s is su e s h a d b e e n ra ise d in hi s pr i orpet i t i on, and thathe r ai s ed no new i s s ues . B ar enboyt i m el yappea l ed. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the pet i t i on asO nce the s i x- m ont h per i od has pas s ed, the bur den i s on t he al i en t o “pr ovi de[] good 2 re a so n to b e liev e th a t th e re is n o sig n if ica n t li k e lih o o d o f

re m o v a l in th e re a so n a b ly for es eea bl e futur e . . . . ” Zadvy das v. D avi s , 533 U . S. 678, 701 ( U . S. 2001) . O nl ythen d o e s th e b u rd e n sh if

t to th e G o v e rn m e n t, w h ich “ m u st re sp o n d w ith e v id e n c e su f f icie n t to r ebutt hats how i ng. ” I d. 4 s econd ors ucce s s i ve. Z ay as v. I N S, 311 F. 3d 247, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e fi nd no l egal err orher e, as “a s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on, w hi ch r ai s es gr ounds i dent i cal t o t hos e r ai s ed and r e j e c t e d o n the mer i t s , ne e d n otbe e nt e r t a i ne d. ” Se e e . g. , K uh l mann v. W i l s on , 47 7 U. S. 436, 454 ( 1986) ( s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on s houl d be gr ant ed onl yi n r ar e ca s es ) . B ar enboy ra ise d n o n e w iss u e s in h is s e c o n d p e tit io n ; b u t in re sp o n se to th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r to s how caus e w hyt he pet i t i on s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed, he ar gued thatci r cumst ance s had c h a n g e d ; e.g ., h e h a d c o o p e ra ted in su b m itt in g a c iti z e n sh ip a p p lica tio n , an d h is presum pti ve rem ov al peri od had exp i red. W e agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rtthat these c ir c u m s ta n c e s w e re n o t le g a lly sig n if ic a n t. F ir st, in it s o rde r de n y ing B are n b o y ’s firsth ab ea s p eti ti o n , the D istri ct C o u rt in d ica ted th a t B a re n b o y ’s r e m o v a l p e rio d w a s b e in g e x ten d e d d u e to h is f a ilu re to co o p era te i n o b tai n ing n ec essa ryd o cu m en ts. In th e se co n d p roc ee d ing , the D istri ct C o u rt aff i r m ed thi s fi ndi ng and cl ar i fi ed thatthe r emoval per i od di d notbegi n unt i l B ar enboy began t o cooper at e w i t h I C E offi ci al s ; i . e. , i n A pr i l 2005. T hus , the s econd ha beas pet i t i on, fi l ed abouts i x w eeks t her eaf t er , w as s t i l l pr ematur e. Second, w e agr ee w i t h the D i s t r i ctC our tt hatB ar enboyhad fa i l ed t o pr oduce a nycompet entevi dence on t he ques t i on of w hetherhe w as unl i kel yt o be r emoved i n t he for es eea bl e futur e. 2B ar enboyhas at t ache d t o hi s M emora ndum of Law O ppos i ng Sum m aryA ct i on a 3 l et t erdat ed O ct ober21, 2005 fr om the Em bas s yof M ol dova, i ndi cat i ng thati tcannot m ake a fi nal deci s i on on hi s ci t i zens hi p appl i cat i on unt i l i tr ece i ves a pr operi dent i fi cat i on document , an or i gi nal cr i m i nal hi s t oryr ecor d t r ans l at ed t o M ol dovan orR us s i an, and a m o n e yo rd e r f

o r 1 0 U .S . d o llars . A s th e E m b a ss yis s til l w ill in g to c o n sid e r h is c iti z e n sh ip a p p lica tio n , h e c a n n o t sh o w a t th is tim e th a t h e is u n lik e lyto b e re m o v e d in t he r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e futur e. 5 W e not e thatt he s i x- m ont h pr es um pt i ve per i od has r ece nt l ypas s ed, butthatdoes notm ean thatB ar enboyi s aut om at i cal l yent i t l ed t o be r el eas ed. “To t he contr ary , an al i en m aybe hel d i n confi nementunt i l i thas been de t erm i ned thatther e i s no s i gni fi cant lik e lih o o d o f

re m o v a l in th e re a s o n a b ly f o re s e e a b le f

u tu re .” Z a d v y d a s , 5 3 3 U .S . a t 7 0 1 . I f B ar enboybel i eves he i s unl i kel yt o be r emoved i n t he nea rfutur e, he mayr eques tt he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yt o r evi ew hi s s i tuat i on, as out l i ned i n t he G o v e rn m e n t’ s re s p o n s e in o p p o s itio n to h is re le a s e o n b a il. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 2 4 1 .1 3 . Fur t her , B ar enboym ayfi l e a ha beas pet i t i on i n t he futur e i f he c an s how thathi s r emoval i s notr eas onabl yfor es eea bl e. 3 Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t . T he m o tio n f o r re lea se is d e n ied a s m o o t.