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 Third C ir c uit 11-22-2005 

# Por t al 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 . 04-2432

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_2005

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 2005 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 " P or t al v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 211. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/211NOT 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- 2432

__________ TULI O PO RTA L, P eti ti o n er, vs. U n ited S tate s A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t.

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce E xecut i ve O ffi ce f

orI m m i gr at i on R evi ew ( B I A N o. A 77 037 642)

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

N ovember8, 2005

___________ B efor e: R O T H , FU E N T E S, and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: N ovember22, 2005)

__________ OP I NI ON

__________As of March 2003, “theI NS cea sed to existas an independent ag ency within the United 1 States Depa

rtment of Just ice [‘DOJ’] and its functions were tra nsfer red to the newly

formed United States Depa

rtment of Homela

nd Security .” Le ia v. A sh c ro ft , 393 F.3d 427, 430 n.4 ( 3d Cir. 2005). The B IA remains within the DOJ . Kna pik v . A sh c ro ft , 384 F.3d 84, 86 n.2 ( 3d Cir. 20 04 ) ( c itingHo me land

Se c urity Ac t of 20 02 , Pu b. L . N o. 10 7- 29 6, §§ 44 1, 45 1, 47 1, 11 6 St at. 2135 (2002)) . -2- G arth, C i r cui tJ udge: T ul i o Por t al ( “M r . Por t al ”) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re o p e n b e c a u s e it w a s u n tim e ly f ile d . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. O n N ovember14, 2001, the form erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce (“ IN S ” ) iss u e d a N o tice to A p p e a r c h a rg in g M r. P o rta l, a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f P e ru , w ith 1 bei ng r emovabl e as an al i en pr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es w ho had notbeen a dm i t t ed or p a ro le d . See 8 U . S. C . §1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) . A n I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) found M r . Por t al rem o v ab le as c h arg ed , an d g ran ted h im v o lun taryd ep arture, on F eb rua ry2 8 , 2 0 0 2 . M r. Por t al m oved t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs ( “fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen” ) s o thathe coul d appl yfor a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s b a se d o n h is m a rria g e to a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n . T h e IJ d e n ied th is m ot i on on A pr i l 15, 2002, and, on M ay7, 2003, the B I A aff i r m ed. M r . Por t al di d not pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s M ay7, 2003 deci s i on. M r . Por t al and hi s fi r s tw i fe di vor ced, but , on J anuary14, 2004, M r . Por t al r em arr i ed. O n M ar ch 4, 2004, M r . Por t al m oved the B I A t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs ( “s econd m ot i on t o r eopen” ) s o thathe coul d appl yt o adj us ts t atus bas ed on the pendi ng-3-

empl oym ent - bas ed vi s a pet i t i on ( “I - 140 pet i t i on”) of hi s s econd w i fe. T he B I A deni ed thatm ot i on as unt i m el yon A pr i l 21, 2004. M r . Por t al pet i t i ons thi s C our tt o r evi ew the B I A ’ s A pr i l 21, 2004 deci s i on. II. W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rM r . P o r t a l ’ s P e t i t i o n f o rRe v i e w p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re o p e n f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Lu v. A sh c ro ft , 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “W e h a v e tra d iti o n a llyd isf a v o re d m o tio n s to r eopen i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . III . I n hi s br i ef t o thi s C our t , M r . Por t al has notchal l enged the B I A ’ s concl us i on that hi s s econd mot i on t o r eopen w as unt i m el y . H e has ther efor e w ai ved the onl yvi abl e i s s ue o n a p p e a l. N

agl e v. A l

s pach , 8 F . 3 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). W e n o te ne v erthe less that the B IA d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing M r. P o rt a l’ s s e c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n . W ith c e rt a in e x c e p tio n s th a t d o n o t a p p ly h e re , a m ot i on t o r eopen mustbe fi l ed no l at erthan 90 day s aft erthe dat e on w hi ch the fi nal a d mi n i s tr a t i v e d e c i s i o n wa s r e n d e r e d i n th e p r o c e e d i n g s o u g h tt o b e r e o p e n e d . 8 C. F . R. §1003. 2( c) ( 2) . M r . Por t al fi l ed hi s s econd mot i on t o r eopen ne ar l yt en mont hs aft erthe B IA ’s M a y7 , 2 0 0 3 d e c is io n . In h is b rie f

, M r. P o rta l ad v a n c e s a rg u m e n ts a b o u t th e m e rits o f h is f irst m o tio n to r eopen. M r . Por t al has not , how ever , pet i t i oned forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on-4-

a f f ir m in g th e IJ ’s d e n ia l o f h is f ir s t m o tio n to re o p e n , n o r c o u ld h e d o s o a t th is la te d a te . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(1 ). W e th e re f o re la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r t h e s e a rg u m e n ts . M r . Por t al al s o ar gues her e forthe fi r s tt i m e thathe i s el i gi bl e t o adj us thi s s t atus bas ed on hi s s econd w i fe’ s appr oved I - 140 pet i t i on. H e has s ubm i t t ed w i th hi s br i ef a copyof the not i ce appr ovi ng the I - 140 pet i t i on, w hi ch w as i s s ued al m os ttw o m onths aft er th e A p ril 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 B IA d e c isio n w e a re a sk e d to re v iew h e re . W e m a yn o t co n sid e r th is d o c u me n tb e c a u s e i td i d n o ta p p e a ri n th e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e c o r d . 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(A ). M r . P o r t a l ’ s P e t i t i o n f

o rRe v i e w wi l l b e DE NI E D.