NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0350n.06 F iled: Jun e 19, 2008 No. 07-3770 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
A R T U R X H U T I, Petitioner,
v. MI CH AE LB . M UK

ASE Y, U. S. A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF A D E CI SI O N O F T HE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

BEF ORE: RO G ER S, C OOK , a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. McK EAGU E, C ircu i t Ju dge. Artur Xhuti, on beha lf of himself and his wife , Majlinda, asks this court for r elief f

rom an a dverse decision of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls (“B oard” ). He maintains that he cannot r eturn to his home country of Albania b ec au s e o f h is past politi cal activities and his well-f

ounded fe ar of

future pe rsec utio n . Be cause of seve ral proc edura l miscues during the immigration procee dings, how ever , we do not re ach the m er i ts of the claims pre sented in the asylum application or the c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel. As explained below, we aff irm the dec ision of the Boa rd.

INo. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 2 - The Xhuti s , n a ti v e s an d

c it iz e n s o f

A lb an ia , c a me to th e U n it e d St a te s a s n o n im mi g rant students. Mr. Xhuti sought as y l u m on Fe bruar y 25, 2002, and listed his wife a s a der ivative benef iciary . They wer e both c harg ed with r emovability for failing to c omply with the conditions of the ir vis a s. Th e y

a dmi tte d to the I mmigration Jud g e (“ I J”) mos t of the fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns in t he ir notices to appe ar, including that they arr ived i n the Unit ed States on Jul y 24, 2001. The I J noted at their initial hearingthat the Xhutis wer e phy sically in the United States less than a y ear befor e they
wer e ser ved with their notice s to appea r. Neither challeng ed this factual a ssertion. They asked f or asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, protec tion from torture, a nd voluntary

depar ture. Mr. Xhuti admitted remova bility at the initial hear ing. During a second hear ing, the I J found that Mrs. Xhuti was re movable as w ell beca use she a sked to be included on her husba nd’s asylum ap p l i ca t i o nan d

n o l o n ger

h ada f o re i gnre s i d en ce wh i ch s h e h adn o i n t en t i o no f ab an d o n i n g. The I J held a merits hear ing on Fe bruar y 9, 2005. He a djourned the he aringwithout issui ng a dec ision. He rec onvened the hear ing on May 20, 2005, and is sued an oral decision. He r eaf firmed the Xhutis’ re movability , denied the a pplication for r elief, a

nd found them inelig ible for voluntar y depar ture. Th e Xhuti s ti me ly

a pp e a le d to the B oa

rd on June 17 , 2 00 5. Whil e the a ppe a l w a s st ill pending , the Xhutis moved to remand the ir ca se to all ow them to apply for a djustment of status based on Mr s. Xhuti’s approve d I -140 employ ment-base d visa petition. The De p artment of Homela n d Security

(“D HS”) opposed the motion, arg uing that the Xhutis were ineligible f or adjustment of status beca use they wer e not in lawful nonimmigra nt status. I n their re ply

brief, the Xhutis a rgued for the first time that the ir ineligibility should be excused due t o t h e i n eff ectiveNo. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 3 - assistance of their pr ior counsel. They also argued, contrary to the I J ’s earlier finding, that they had been in the United States for at least a y ear befor e beingserve d with their notice to appe ar a nd wer e, there fore , elig ible for voluntar y depar ture. On Dec ember

29, 2006, the B oard dismissed their a ppeal a nd denied their

motion to remand. The B oard f

ound sufficie nt fa ct ual support for the I J ’s finding that the conditions in Albania had chang ed enough to rebut a pr esumption of a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution. As to remand, the B oard que stioned why the Xhutis f

ailed to inform the I J that they had bee n in the United States fo r at le a st a

y e ar p ri or

to b e ing se rv e d wi th the no tic e to a pp e ar. Mo re ov e r, the y

fa ile d to su

bmi t any proof that their

prior counse l had bee n informed of t he alleg ation of ineff ective a ssistance of
c ouns e l or

that a g ri e va nc e ha d b e e n f

ile d a g a ins t hi m. The Xhutis then took two ave nues in sear ch of r elief. First, they filed a pe tition for review in this court. The cle rk of the c ourt subsequently dismiss ed the pe tition. Se e inf ra § I I .A. The sec ond avenue taken was a mot ion to rec onsider filed with the Board. They asked that the B oard r econside r its decision not to remand fo r ad j u stment of status based on inef fec tive
a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l or , a lte rn a tiv e ly , th a t it co ns ide r t he ir tim e sp e nt i n th e Un ite d St a te s p ri or to J uly 2001 for pur

poses of mee ting the one-y ea r p h y sical pre sence require ment for voluntar y depar ture. They attache d a copy of their g rieva nce ag ainst their prior c ounsel filed with the State of Michig an Attorne y

Grieva nce Commission; several a ffidavits; and a copy of cor responde nce se nt by the ir c ur re nt c ouns e l to pa st c ouns e l. The B oard tre ated the se cond motion as one to re consider in pa rt and to r emand in par

t. On the re consider pa

rt, the Board held that the m otion was unti mely , but went on to deny rec onsiderationNo. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 4 - on the me ri ts b e c a

us e the Xh

uti s h a d w a ive d th e argume nt t hat th e y we re in t he cou nt ry at lea st a y e ar b e fo re se rv ic e of

the no tic e to a

pp e ar. On

the re op e n p art , th e B oa

rd he ld t hat it wa s n ot t ime barr ed bec ause the period for filing a motion to reopen (n i n ety day s) is longe r than that for
rec onsideration (thirty day s). The B oard c oncluded, howe ver, that the Xhutis failed to explain why they did not prese nt their evidence sooner. Acc ording ly , the B oard de nied their sec ond motion by order filed on May

16, 2007. Mr. Xhuti petitioned this court for r eview of the B oard’ s May

16, 2007, decision.

II A. Dec em ber 29, 2006, De cision of the Board Mr. Xhuti devotes c onsiderable space in his b ri efs to the B oard’ s Dec ember 29, 2006, decision on t h e m er i t s of the a sy lum application and first motion. That dec ision, however, is not befor e us. Pursuant to Six th Circuit Rule 45(a) (3), the c lerk of the court dismissed an ea rlier pe tition from that dec ision for want of pr osecution. Xhuti v . Gonzales , No. 07-3094, orde r (6th Cir. May 16, 2007). The Xhutis failed to see k rec onsideration of the dismiss al. 6th Cir. R. 45(b) (ten da y s to seek
rec onsideration). The time limi t f or judicially challeng ing the Dec ember 29, 2006, decision of the B oa rd ha s si nc e pa sse d. 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b) (1) (t hir ty da y s) . T he re fo re , w e la c k ju ri sd ic tio n to consider the merits of that dec ision. Pr e k aj v . I NS , 384 F.3d 265, 267- 68 (6th Cir. 2004).

B. May 16, 2007, De cision of the BoardNo. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 5 - The B oard decision proper ly befor e us for review is the M ay 16, 2007, decision on t he sec ond motion for rec onsideration and to reope n. We revie w t he Board’ s decision for a n abuse of discretion. De nk o v . I NS , 3 51 F .3 d 7 17 , 7 23 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) (c itatio n o mitte d) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
. “An a buse of discr etion ca n b e s h o wn when the I J or B oard of fer s no rational explanation, inexpl icably depar

ts f rom established policies, or rests on an imper missibl e basis such a s invidious discrimination ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or

g roup.” Denk

o , 351 F.3d at 723 (internal quotation mar ks and alter ations omitt ed). Questions of law a re r eviewe d de novo. As hk i v . I NS , 233 F.3d 913, 917 (6th Cir. 2000).

1. Motion for Reconsideration To be e ligible f

or voluntary

depar t u re, a petitioner must be phy sically in the United States for at least o n e y ea r b ef

o re beingserve d with a notice to appe ar. 8 U .S.C. § 1229c(b)(1) (A). T he DHS co n t en d s t hat this period must be uninterrupte d—any voluntary

depar ture fr om the United States would start the cloc k over at the time of re en t ry . M r. Xhuti argues to the contra ry —a te mpo ra ry de pa rt ur e on ly pa us e s th e c loc k wh ile the a lie n is o uts ide of the c ountr

y . T he B oa

rd did not addre ss the merits of this argument, howeve r, bec ause it conc luded in its Dece m ber 29, 2006, decision that the c ouple had wa ived the ar g ument by not challeng ing the I J ’s finding that the clock beg an tickingon J uly

24, 2001. They

soug ht rec onsideration of that decision, and the B oard de nied the ir se c on d mo tio n a s unti me ly and on the me ri ts. We ne ed not a ddress the issue of timeliness. The purpose of a motion to rec onsider i s t he
corr ection of le gal o r fa ct ual er rors that oc curr ed in the B oard’ s orig inal decision. 8 U.S.C. §No. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 6 - 1229a(c )(6) (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)( 1). Ther efor e, a motion to re consider “ shall specify the er rors of law or fac t in the previous orde r and sha ll be supported by p er tinent authority .” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(6) (C). I t is undisputed that the Xhuti s did not object to the I J ’s i nitial ruling or final ruling that they did not meet the one- y ear require ment. Mr. Xhuti instea d points to a line of questioning dur ing the merits hear in g w h e nth e c o u p le ’ s a tt o r

n e y a tt e mp te d

to s h o w th a t t

h e y in f a c t w e r e in

th e c o u n try
mor e tha n a y e ar b e fo re be ing se rv e d with the no tic e to a pp e ar. Mr s. Xhuti wa s te sti fy inga bo ut a trip she made w ith her husband to Albania in 2001 to see her

ill mot her- in-law. The fol l owing
c oll oq uy the n to ok pla c e : Q. Okay . And af

ter leavingAlbania did you spend any time in any

other c o u n t r y? A. We just t ransit, I ’m not sure it was a fewhours or wh at
. J u s t a tra nsit, y ou kn ow , c ha

ng e of a ir pla ne s. Q. Mr s. Xhuti , d o you have any c ri min a l c on vic tio ns ? A. No. Q. Do y ou have e noug h money in y our saving s acc ount to buy a ticket -

- J UDGE TO MS. S UL L I VAN Q. Ho w i s th a t r e le va nt? A. Voluntary

depar ture, Your

Honor. Q. They ’re not eligible. A
. O k ay.No. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 7 - Q. They

don’t have the one- y ear

afte r the Notice to A

ppear or befor e the Notice to Appear was ser ved. Hr. Tr . at 139. Counsel then beg an askingMrs. Xhuti about her f ear of re turning to Albania. Th e I J’s c on c lus ion

that th e Xh

uti s d id n ot q

ua lif y fo r v olu nta ry de pa rt ur e is n ot b e fo re us . Rather, we only

revie w whethe r t he Board abused it s discretion in concludingthat the Xhutis waived the issue by

not pursuing the matter fur ther be fore the I J or objec ting to the I J ’s conc lusion. Reg ulations gr ant the Board the authority to presc ribe its own proc edura l rules. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)( 4). In prior administrative de cisions, the Boa rd ha s d ev el oped and a

pplied a rule that issues not objected to below a re w aived on a

ppeal. See, e .g. , In re R- S-H , 2 3 I &N De c. 6 29, 638 (B I A 2003) (“ [T] he re cord doe s not refle ct that t h e re s p o n d en t raised a ny objections . . . at the he ari ng . Th e re fo re , th e re sp on de nt w a ive d h is o pp or tun ity to p ur su e thi s is su e on

a pp e a l.” ); se e als o M a tte r o f E d wards , 2 0 I &N De c. 191, 196 n.4 (B I A 1990) (c ited in the Boa rd’s De c. 29, 2006, decision). Seve ral c ourts have r ecognized the validity of the B oard’ s waiver

rule. Pinos-Gonzalez v. Muk asey , 5 19 F .3 d 4 36 , 4 40 (8 th C ir . 2 00 8) ; Torres de la Cruz v. Maure r , 483 F.3d 1013, 1022- 23 (1 0th Cir . 2 00 7) ; Ed

ua rd v . A sh c ro ft , 3 79 F .3 d 1 82 , 1 95 n. 14 (5 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; Ay y ou b v . I NS , 9 3 F. App’x 828, 834 (6th Cir. 2004) ( unpublished). As the Te nth Circuit ex plained in Torres de la Cruz , “The [Board]’s waive r rule, a s with most appellate b o d i es , is wholly consistent with its rules of prac tice.” 483 F .3d at 1023 (c iting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d) (1))
. On at least three differ ent occa sions the I J noted that the Xhutis w ere ineligible f or voluntary depar ture be cause they enter ed the country in J uly 2001. Not once did the Xhutis specifica lly object
or a rgu e t h e i r l e g a l t h e o r

y t h a t p r i o r p e r i o d s o f p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d . Wh ileNo. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 8 - counsel did elicit testimony to support that argument, counsel did not object when the I J cut off that lin e of qu e sti on ingor

argue tha t th e I J wa s w ro ngin h is c on c lus ion
. I n sh or t, whe n p re se nte d w ith
s e v e r a l o p p o rtu n i t i e s t o r a i s e t h e i r ar g u m e n t b e f o r e t h e IJ , t h e X h u t i s r e m a i n e d s i l e n t
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
we fi nd that th e B oa

rd did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n w he n it c on c lud e d th a t th e Xhuti s wa ive d th e ir
vo luntary -d e pa

rt ur e c la im. As the B oa

rd did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n, we wi ll not c on sid e r t he c la im for the f irst time on a petition for re view. P in o s - G o n z alez , 5 1 9 F. 3d at 440 (“ Where the a g ency proper ly applies its own waiver rule a nd ref uses to consider the merits of an a rgument that was not raised in the initial hea

ring , we will not permit an end run around those discretionar y agency proce dures by

addre ssing the a

rgument for the f

irst time in a petition for judicial revie w.”)
.

2. Motion to Re open As part of their motion, the Xhutis also sought to re open their application for adjustment of st atu s. I ni tiall y , M r. Xhuti a dmi tte d th a t he wa s r e mov a ble and that th e I J det e rm ine d th a t Mr s. Xhuti wa s als o re mov a

ble
. Af te r the I J re nd e re d h is f

ina l de c isi on , th e Xhuti s so ug ht t o a dju st the ir status to t hat of lawf ul p e rm ane nt r e sid e nts based on Mr s. Xhuti ’s I -1 40 e mpl oy me nt- ba se d v isa p et i t ion. They

argued bef

ore the Boa

rd that they

had not maintained their lawful nonimmigr ant status based on the e rrone ous advice of their prior counsel, advice so defe ctive that it rose to the leve l of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. The Boa rd has set forth proce dures that parties must follow in a ssertin g t h e ineffec tive assistance of counse l. As the Boa rd explained in Matter of Lozada ,No. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 9 - A motion based upon a claim of i neff ective assistance of counsel should be supported by

an af fidavit of the a lleg edly

ag g riev ed respondent attesting to the re le va nt f a c ts.
. . . [T ]hat a ff

ida vit sh ou ld i nc lud e a

state me nt t

hat se ts f or th i n d e ta il the ag ree ment that was e ntere d into with former c ounsel with respec t to the actions to b e take n on a

pp e a l and wh a t c ouns e l did or did no t r e pr e se nt t o th e re sp on de nt i n this reg ard
. Furthermore , befor e alleg ations of ineff ective a ssistance of f

ormer counsel a re pr esente d to the Boa rd, for mer c ounsel must be informed of the alleg ations and allowed the opportuni ty to respond. Any subsequent re sponse from c ouns e l, or

re po rt of c ouns e l’ s f

a ilure or re fu sa l to re sp on d, sh ou ld b e su bmi tte d w ith the motion. Finally , if it is asserted that prior counsel’s handling of the case involved a violation of ethica l or leg al re sponsibili ties, t h e motion shoul d ref lect whe ther a complaint has bee n filed with appropr iate disciplinary authorities re gar d ing suc h re pr e se ntatio n, and

if no t, why no t. The hig h standard a

nnounced he re is nec essar y if we a re to have a ba sis for assessingthe substantial number of cla ims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel that come be fore the B oard. 19 I &NDec . 637, 639 (B I A 1988). The Boa rd re jected the Xhutis’ ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim in its Dece mber 29, 2006, de cision beca use it found that they

had fa iled to pro v i de any
e vid e nc e tha

t the y inf or me d p ri or c ouns e l of

the a lle g a tio ns or

that a g ri e va nc e ha d b e e n f

ile d w ith the appr opriate disciplinar y authority
. I n their second motion, the Xhutis pr ovided the documenta ry evidenc e. Ho w e v e r , th e B o ar d d e n ie d th e ir mo ti o nb e c a

u s e th e X h u ti s h a d

f a il e d to e xp la in

w hy they could not have pr ovided the docume nts earlier
. Mr. Xhuti now ar g ues that the c ouple met the re quirements of Lozada in their first mot ion t o r e o p e nb e c a

u s e t h e y informed

the B o ard that their prior c ounsel had be en notified of the alleg ations and that a g rieva nce ha d been f

iled. Thus, they

should not have bee n require d to provide
e vid e nc e of

tho se a sse rt ion s in

the fi rs t pla c e , an d the B oa rd a bu se d its disc re tio n in de nyingthe ir second motion for f

ailing to include the evidenc e with the first motion.No. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 10 - The a rgument suffe rs from at least three fata l defe cts. First, the Xhutis failed to argue to the B oa rd that th e y we re no t r e qu ir e d to pr ov ide evi de nc e of the ir c omm un ic a tio n to c ouns e l or

the ir g rieva nce f iled ag ainst him. I nstead, in their se cond motion, they argued that they

had i n fac t pr ov ide d a

c op y of the g ri e va

nc e wi th t he fi rs t mo tio n e ve n tho ug h th e re c or d d oe s n ot r e fl e c t th is to be ac curate. (The y

made no mention of whether the email cor

responde nce w as i ncluded with the
a tta c hme nts su

bmi tte d in

su pp or t of the fi rs t mo tio n. Th e re c or d re fl e c ts that c op ie s o f t he e ma ils
wer e not attac hed.) We c annot re view a cl ai m ra i s ed fo r the fir st tim e in a pe tition for review
. Ra ma ni v . A sh c ro

ft , 378 F.3d 554, 560 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (holding “ that only claims proper ly prese nted to the [Board] and considere d on their merits can be revie wed by this c ourt in an i m m i gration appea l”). Second, whe ther c ounsel was informed of t he allegations and whether a g rieva nce had bee n filed ar e fa ctual matter s that the Xhutis would have be en re quired to establish at a new hea ring . The Board ’s reg ulatio ns re qu ir e that a mot ion to r e op e n “ state the ne w f a c ts t hat w ill be pr ov e n at a hear ing” and, importantly , submit “affida vits or other e videntiary

materia l” to support those fac tual statements. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c )(1) . T hey wer e also re quired to show that the e vidence “wa s not available and could not have been disc overe d or pre sented” ear lier. Id. Thus, under § 1003.2( c)( 1), the Xhutis were require d in their first motion to support with evidence their fa ctual asse rtions that they had informe d their prior c ounsel of the a lleg ations and had f iled a g rieva

nce a g ainst him. And, the y we re re qu ir e d in the ir se c on d mot ion no t on ly to p ro vid e thi s e vid e nc e (whic h th e y a pp e ar t o have done ) but also to show that the evidenc e wa s not available to them duringthe proc eeding s onNo. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 11 - the fi rs t mo tio n. As the B oa rd e xpla ine d in its dec isi on

on the se c on d mo tio n, the Xh uti s f a ile d to
m ak e t h i s l at t er

s h o wi n g. This leads to the third problem. While the email cor responde nce a

nd g rieva nce w ere
ava ila ble duri ngthe pr oc e e din g s o n th e fi rs t mo tio n, the y we re jus t ba

re ly a va ila ble. The Xhuti s fi le d th e ir fi rs t mo tio n to re op e n o n July 24 , 2 00 6. No wh e re in t

hat mo tio n d id t

he y se t f or th a c la im of ineff ective a ssistance of co u n s el
. Only in their reply

brief did they

raise the claim. They submitt ed their r eply

brief f or filing on September 26, 2006. O n September 20, the ir prese nt counsel sent an e mail to their prior counse l stating in a pe rfunc tory manner that the latter g ave inc orre ct advice to the Xhutis on how to keep in-status. They then filed a g rieva nce a g ainst their prior c ounsel on September 26, the same da y they filed their reply brief. T hus, prior to raisingthe claim bef ore the B oa rd , th e Xhuti s g ave the ir pr ior c ouns e l si x day s’ no tic e of the g e ne ra l a lle g a tio n a g a ins t hi m, and no prior n o t i ce o f t h e spec ific alleg ations set forth in the g rieva nce f iled with the attorney g rieva nce c ommissi on. This was insufficie nt t i m e fo r counsel to respond to the char g es in the g rieva nce. As ab a v . A sh c ro

ft , 377 F.3d 9, 12 (1st Ci r. 2004) ( holding that thre e day s prior notice of char g es wa s insufficient time for the at t o rn ey to respond under Lozada ); see also Nikollbibaj v. Gonzales , 232 F. App’ x 546, 555 (6th Cir. 2007) (unpubli s hed) ( “Simply put, two day s were not sufficie nt to provide Azz am with an oppo rt u nity to respond to the inef fec tive assistance alleg ations.”), petition for cert. filed , 76 U.S.L .W. 3583 (U.S. Apr. 14, 2008) (No. 07- 1306). Be cause Mr. Xhuti has fa iled to show that the Boa rd abuse d its discreti o n b y denying the motion to reopen, we will not reac h the m erits of the unde rlying ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim. See Nikollbibaj , 2 32 F . App ’x at 56 0 ( B a tc he lde r, J., c on c ur ri ngin p art

and dis se nti ngin p art )No. 07-3770

Xhuti v. Mukase

y

- 12 - (explaining that beca

use t he petiti oners did not comply with Lozada , the majority should not have g one ahe ad and r eac hed the mer its of their ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel claim).

III Acc ording ly , we AF FI RM the Boa rd’s May 16, 2007, order

and DEN Y the petition.