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 irc uit 6-28-2005 

# Jam 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 . 04-2721

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_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 by 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 ill 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 trat or of V ill 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 . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Jam al v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 955. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/955NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UNI T E D S T AT E S CO UR T OF AP P E AL F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 2721 M OG EB J AM AL,

Pet i t i oner v. AL BE RT O GONZ AL E S , AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L

O F TH E U N I TED STA TES* *Cap t i on a mend e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 43 ( c ) , Fe d. R. A pp . P. R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A 76- 558- 133) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 3, 2005 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S, G R E E N B E R G and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 28, 2005) OP I NI ONO n M ar ch 1, 2003, the I N S ceas ed t o exi s tas an age ncyw i thi n the D epartm entof 1 J u s tic e a n d its f

u n c tio n s w e re tr a n s f

e rr e d to th e D e p a rt m e n t o f H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty. See H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty A c t o f 2 0 0 2 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 7 -2 9 6 , 1 1 6 S ta t. 2 1 3 5 (2 0 0 2 ).

2 C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udge. M ogeb J amal ( “Pet i t i oner ”) s eeks j udi ci al r evi ew of the deni al bythe B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) o f h is m o tio n to re c o n sid e r its e a rlierd e c isio n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re o p e n re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t P e tit io n e r h a s f a iled to d e mo n s tr a t e th a tth e BI A a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g h i s mo t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r , we wi l l d e n yth e P e t i t i o n f

o rRe v i e w. I. A s w e w ri te s o le ly f

o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e b ri e f

ly su m m a ri z e th e re le v a n t b a c k g ro u n d . T h e f o rm e r Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liza tio n S e rv ice (“ IN S ” ) iss u e d P e tit io n e r a N o tice to 1 A ppearforr emoval pr ocee di ngs . A ta hea r i ng befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge, Pet i t i oner conce ded r emoval and dec l i ned t o appl yforas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , or p rotec ti o n p u rsua n t t o the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). H e re q u ested v o lun tary departur e, and s oughta cont i nuance t o aw ai tthe r es ul tof hi s pendi ng l aborcert i fi cat i on r eques t . T he i m m i gr at i on j udge gr ant ed Pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tforvol unt arydepartur e, but d e n ied h is m o tio n f

o r a c o n tin u a n c e . P e tit io n e r a p p e a led th e d e n ial o f a c o n tin u a n c e to th e B IA , w h ic h s u m m a ri ly af f ir m e d th e re m o v a l o rd e r p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 4) . Pet i t i onerdi d notpet i t i on thi s C our tt o r evi ew the B I A ’ s or der . I ns t ead, he fi l ed a mot i on w i th the B I A t o r eopen the r emoval pr ocee di ngs and s t aythe deport at i on3

or der , bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s i n Y emen. H e s oughtperm i s s i on t o pur s ue ap p li ca ti o n s fo r asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d reli ef u n d er the C A T . T h e B IA deni ed Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on on M ar ch 17, 2004, not i ng thatPet i t i onerfai l ed t o fi l e any appl i cat i ons forpr ot ect i on i n contr avent i on of 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) , and thatthe tr i bal confl i ctthatunderpi nned Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on pr edat ed the comm ence m entof hi s r emoval p ro c e e d in g s , s ee i d. Pet i t i onerdi d nots eek thi s C ourt ’ s r evi ew of thi s or der , but s u b m itte d a m o tio n to th e B IA f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n o f

its d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to re o p e n . H e p o in ted o u t th a t th e p u rp o rte d “ c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s” f o rm in g th e b a sis f

o r h is r eques tforr eopeni ng w as notthe tr i bal confl i cti t s el f, butr atherthe dea th of hi s br other re s u ltin g f

ro m th is c o n f

lic t, w h ic h o c c u rr e d o n J a n u a ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , af t erthe i m m i gr at i on j udge i s s ued an or der . N everthel es s , on M ay24, 2004 the B I A deni ed Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i derfortw o r eas ons : ( 1) Pet i t i oner ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de anyevi dence l i nki ng the death of hi s br otherand the ongoi ng tr i bal confl i ctw i th anyof hi s cl ai m s forr el i ef; and (2) P eti ti o n er’s fa il u re to su p p o rth is m o ti o n w ith ap p li ca ti o n s fo r reli ef an d ev iden ti aryA lth o u g h e n title d , “ M o tio n to re c o n s id e r a n d re m a n d o n b e h a lf o f th e re s p o n d e n t . . . ; 2 m ot i on t o r emand and r eopen f orpurpos es of r eopeni ng r emoval pr ocee di ng bas ed on arti cle 3 o f th e C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re,” (A p p . at 18 ), the B IA co n stru ed P eti ti o n er’s second m oti on as one f

or r econ si derat i on of it s M arch 17 , 20 04 decis i on den y i ng his fi rs t m o tio n to re o p e n . B e c a u se P e tit io n e r’s se c o n d m o tio n , w h ile e x tre m e lyv a g u e , ap p e a rs to r ear gue the mer i t s of hi s fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen a nd r ai s es no new evi dence oraddi t i onal change d ci r cumst ance s , w e cons true thi s m ot i on l i kew i s e. I ndeed, Pet i t i oner ’ s Pet i t i on fo r R ev iew ch ara cterizes this sec o n d m o ti o n ex clus ivelyas o n e f o r reco n side rati o n . In a n ye v e n t, 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(6 ) p ro v id e s th a t an a lien m a yf ile o n lyo n e m o tio n to re o p e n re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s , a b s e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s n o t im p lic a te d h e re . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )( 6 ), am ended on othergr ounds by R eal I D A ctof 2005 , Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 S tat. 2 3 1 (M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ); see al so 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2).

4 m at er i al as m andat ed by8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) . Pet i t i onert i m el yfi l ed a Pet i t i on for 2 R e v iew o f

th e M a y2 4 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r w ith th is C o u rt. II. T he B I A had j ur i s di ct i on i n thi s m att erunder8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( b) ( 3) and 1003. 2, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the fi nal or derof r emoval unders ect i on 242( a) ( 1) of th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). See Chen v. A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 1 -22 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A s not ed above , Pet i t i onerneverfi l ed a Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the B I A ’ s M ar ch 17, 2004 deci s i on deny i ng hi s fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen, ora Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the B I A ’ s J anuary26, 2004 or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s appea l . A ccor di ngl y , w e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derPet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byaff i rm i ng th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s d e n ia l o f a c o n tin u a n c e . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) ( “The pet i t i on forr evi ew m us tbe fi l ed notl at erthan 30 day s aft erthe dat e of the fi nal or derof re m o v a l.”); S t o n e v . I

NS , 514 U . S. 386, 395 ( 1995) ( “The fi l i ng of the r econs i der at i on5

m o tio n d o e s n o t to ll th e tim e to p e tit io n f o r re v iew .”); i d. a t 3 9 4 -3 5 . N o r m a yw e d ire c tly e n t e r t a i n th e m e r i t s o f

th e B I A ’ s d e n i a l o f

P e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n . W e m a y, h o w e v e r, re v iew w h e th e r th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to re c o n s id e r. Se e No c o n v . I NS , 789 F. 2d 1028, 1033 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( r evi ew i ng deni al of a m o ti o n to rec o n side r fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n ). A n abus e of di s cr et i on occur s w hen an i ncorr ectl egal pr i nci pl e i s appl i ed or f in d in g s o f

f a c t a re a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s o r l a c k in g in s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Ti pu v. I NS , 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W e mustuphol d the B I A ’ s deci s i on unl es s i tw as “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” I d. ; Se v o ia n v . A sh c ro

ft , 290 F. 3d 166, 174 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). II I. Pet i t i onerr ai s es tw o chal l enges t o the B I A ’ s di s pos i t i on of hi s m ot i on for re c o n sid e ra tio n . H e a rg u e s th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yf in d in g th a t h e f

a iled to pr ove a ne xus betw een hi s cl ai m and hi s br other ’ s death i n l i ghtof the r ecor d, and by fai l i ng t o di s cus s the fa ctual underpi nni ngs of hi s t ortur e cl ai m . W e conc l ude thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i derthe deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. Fi r s t , Pet i t i onerdi s r egar ds the B I A ’ s addi t i onal r eas on fordeny i ng hi s m ot i on for re c o n sid e ra tio n ; th a t in su b m itt in g h is in iti a l m o tio n to re o p e n , P e tit io n e r f a iled to c o m p ly w i th 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) . T hi s pr ovi s i on r equi r es thata mot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs6

f o r th e p u rp o se o f

su b m itt in g a n a p p lica tio n f o r re lief b e a c c o m p a n ied b y“ th e a p p ro p ria te appl i cat i on forr el i ef a nd al l s uppor t i ng document at i on. ” I d. T he B I A expr es s l ynot ed at the out s etof i t s M ar ch 17, 2004 deni al of Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen thatPet i t i oner “dec l i ned t o fi l e Form I - 589, appl i cat i on forpr ot ect i on of s om e s orti n thi s country . ” ( A pp. at23. ) I t s M ay24, 2004 deni al of Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i deragai n r el i ed on P eti ti o n er’s fa il u re to “ su p p o rt [] h is m o ti o n b yan ap p li ca ti o n fo r reli ef an d ev iden ti ary m a ter ial e sta b lish in g h is e lig ib ili tyf o r su c h re lief.” (A p p . at 5 .) P e tit io n e r w a s n o t in compl i ance w i th the pr es cr i bed r egul at i on. A s s uch, i tcannotbe s ai d thatthe B I A abus ed it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing h is m o ti o n to rec o n side r th e d en ial o f h is pro ce d u rall yinf irm m o tio n to re o p e n . See Nocon , 7 8 9 F .2 d a t 1 0 3 3 (h o ld in g th a t th e B IA d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g a m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n w h e re p e tit io n e rs f a iled to c o m p lyw ith p ro c e d u re s g o v e rn in g m o tio n s f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n ). T h e re g u latio n s m a k e c lea r th a t a m oti on t o reope n m aybe d enied even i f the m ov i ng partyhas setforth a p ri m a face case fo r reli ef. 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (a). T hi s anal y s i s obvi at es the nee d t o cons i derthe B I A ’ s otherr eas on fordeny i ng P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to re c o n sid e r; th a t h e “ f a iled to e sta b lish a n yn e x u s b e tw e e n h is b ro th e r’s re c e n t d e a th a n d h is o w n a sy lu m c laim .” (A p p . at 5 .) W e re it n e c e ss a ryto d is p o s e o f

th is P e titio n o n th is g ro u n d , h o w e v e r, w e w o u ld a rr iv e a t th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c ) in stru c ts th a t a m o tio n to re o p e n sh a ll n o t b e g ra n ted “ u n les s it appea r s t o the B oar d thatevi dence s oughtt o be off er ed i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e .It is w o rth n o tin g th a t th e B IA ’s M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 d e n ial o f P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to 3 re o p e n ig n o re d th e d e a th o f P e titio n e r’ s b ro th e r a s th e ra tio n a le s u p p o rt in g re o p e n in g . I ns t ead, the B I A deni ed r eopeni ng i n partbecaus e the tr i bal confl i ctm ent i oned i n the a f f id a v it w a s p re s e n t s in c e 1 9 9 9 , b e f o re P e titio n e r d e c lin e d to f ile a p p lic a tio n s f

o r r e lie f. 7 . . atthe form erhear i ng. ” I d. It is n o t d isp u ted th a t th e d e a th o f P e tit io n e r’s b ro th e r in Y emen, the eve ntupon w hi ch hi s m ot i ons ar e bas ed, occurr ed af t erthe i m m i gr at i on j udge i s s ued heror derof r emoval . I n obs ervi ng, how ever , thatPet i t i oner“fa i l ed t o pr ovi de any s peci fi c i nform at i on r egar di ng the caus e and c i r cumst ance s of hi s br other ’ s death, ” ( app. at5) , i tappea r s thatthe B I A di d notcons i derthe af fi davi tdes cr i bi ng the tr i bal confl i ct a n d h is b ro th e r’s d e a th to c o n stitu te “ m a ter ial” e v id e n c e w a rra n tin g re o p e n in g . T h is is notan abus e of di s cr et i on. Pet i t i oner ’ s aff i davi ts t at es thathi s tr i be has been i n confl i ct w i th the A l G ai thi tr i be s i nce 1999, and thathe l earned fr om a J anuary19, 2004 t el ephone cal l fr om hi s fami l yi n Y emen t hathi s br otherw as ki l l ed i n an ac ci dental ong w i th el even other s . H i s r el at i ves , the af fi davi texpl ai ns , w arned hi m r epea t edl ynott o r eturn hom e as h is lif e w ill b e in e x tre m e d a n g e r b e c a u se o f th is in c id e n t. S ig n if

ica n tly , the a f

f id a v it does notdet ai l the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the dea th of Pet i t i oner ’ s br other , and does notr el at e thi s death t o the s i tuat i on fac i ng Pet i t i onerw er e he t o r eturn t o Y emen. I ndeed, the af fi davi tchar act er i zes the dea th of Pet i t i oner ’ s br otheras an ac ci dent . I n l i ghtof the dearth of i nform at i on i n thi s aff i davi t , i tcannotbe s ai d thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on in d en y ing P eti ti o n er’s m o ti o n to rec o n side r his m o ti o n to reo p en . In sh o rt , the B IA c o m m itt e d n o re v e rsib le e rro rs o f law o r f a c t in d e n y in g P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to rec o n side r. 3T h e B IA ’s f a ilu re to a d d re s s th e d e a th o f P e titio n e r’ s b ro th e r w a s a n e rr o n e o u s o v e rs ig h t. In its o rd e r d e n y in g re c o n sid e ra tio n , h o w e v e r, th e B IA re m e d ied th is e rro r a n d c o rre c tly a n a lyze d w h yth e d e a th o f P e titio n e r’ s b ro th e r w a s a n in a d e q u a te b a s is f o r r e o p e n in g . M or eover , as not ed, the B I A appr opr i at el ydeni ed Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i derfor h is f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e a p p lic a b le p ro c e d u ra l r e g u la tio n . 8 I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the Pet i t i on forR evi ew w i l l be deni ed.