2006 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 5-2-2006 

# F e rn andes 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 . 05-4205

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_2006

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 2006 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 " F e rn ande s v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1164. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1164NOT 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- 4205

________________ BR U CE J O SEPH FER N A N D ES, Pet i t i oner v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ 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 72 022 843 on A ugus t19, 2005 I m m i gr at i on J udge: A nni e S. G ar cy

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

M ay2, 2006 B e f o r e : SCI RI CA , CH I EF J U D G E, BA RR Y A N D CO W EN , CI RC U I T J U D G ES ( Fi l ed: M ay2, 2006)

____________________ OP I NI ON

_____________________W e d ism iss e d th e p e tit io n f o r la c k o f

ju risd ictio n to th e e x ten t ita ttem p ted to 1 c h a l l e n g e t h e e a r l i e rd e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i m a s y l u m. 2 P E R C UR I AM B ruce J os eph Fernandes , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an o rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ), d e n y in g h is s e c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n . W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , Fer nandes fi l ed an a s y l um cl ai m . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) deni ed r el i ef butgr ant ed vol unt arydepartur e on J ul y27, 1998. T he I J deni ed a m ot i on t o r eopen i n w hi ch Fernandes cl ai m ed he w as el i gi bl e t o adj us ts t atus bas ed on a l aborcert i fi cat i on on J ul y3, 2002, fi ndi ng thatFernandes w as i nel i gi bl e t o adj us ts t atus b e c a u se h e f

a iled to d e p a rt d u rin g th e p e rio d g ra n ted . 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 hi s appea l on J une 26, 2003, beca us e he f ai l ed t o fi l e a br i ef a ft ers t at i ng t hathe w oul d do s o. Fer nandes pet i t i oned forr evi ew of thatdeci s i on, and w e deni ed the p e titio n . S e e F e rn a n d e s v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, N o . 0 3 -3 0 4 2 (3 d C ir ., J u ly 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 ).

1 O n J une 10, 2005, t he B I A deni ed as unt i m el ya mot i on t o r eopen thatFernandes had fi l ed on M ar ch 25, 2005. Fer nandes had ar gued thathi s unt i m el ym ot i on w as al l ow ed due t o change d countr ycondi t i ons , butthe B I A hel d t hathe had “ notpr ovi ded anym at er i al evi dence t o s uppor tt hi s cl ai m . ” O n A ugus t19, 2005, the B I A deni ed a se c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n a s it e x c e e d e d th e n u m e ric a l li m itatio n s. F e rn a n d e s f iled th is t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of thatdeci s i on. W e deni ed hi s m ot i on fora s t ayof r emoval on D ece m ber6, 2005.3

T hi s cour t ’ s r evi ew ext ends onl yt o t he B I A ’ s or derdeny i ng Fer nandes ’ s econd m ot i on t o r eopen. See St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386, 405 ( 1995) ; N ocon v. I N S, 789 F. 2d 1028, 1033- 34 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . T he dec i s i on t o denya mot i on t o r eopen i s w i t hi n t he B o ard ’s discre ti o n . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (a); L u v . A sh cro ft, 2 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 1 (3d C ir . 2001) . U ndert he r egul at i ons , t he B oar d “has di s cr et i on t o denya mot i on t o r eopen e ven if th e p a rt ym o v in g h a s m a d e o u t a p ri m a f a c ie c a s e f

o r r e lie f.” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (a ). T he s t andar d of r evi ew of an or derdeny i ng a mot i on t o r eopen i s verydefe r ent i al . I N S v. D oher t y , 502 U . S. 314, 323 ( 1992) ( s t r es s i ng thatm ot i ons t o r eopen i m m i gr at i on p roc ee d ing s are d isfav o red an d co n fin ing rev iew to ab u se o f d iscreti o n ). Fer nandes has nots how n t hatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs . Fer nandes ’ br i ef s t at es thathe has a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on bas ed on hi s r el i gi on and pol i t i cal act i vi t i es . H e al s o ar gues thatthe B I A s houl d have gr ant ed h is m o tio n to re o p e n b e c a u se h is e m p lo y e r h a s f iled a lab o r p e tit io n o n h is b e h a lf w h ich is pendi ng. H ow ever , t he mot i on t o r eopen di d notm ent i on anypendi ng l aborpet i t i on, and F e rn a n d e s m a k e s n o o th e r a rg u m e n t th a t ad d re ss e s h o w th e B IA e rre d in d e n y in g h is s econd mot i on t o r eopen. W e w i l l ther efor e denythe pet i t i on.