FI L ED

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T

J UL Y 30, 2010

J OHN L EY

CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 6 1 1 8

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A g e n c y N o

. A 0 7 2

- 8 4 3

- 7 2 6

T O N Y B U R T O N

,

P e t i t i o n e r

,

v e r s u s

U

. S

. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L

,

R e s p o n d e n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

P e t i t i o n f o r R e v i e w o f a D e c i s i o n o f t h e

B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( J u l y 3 0

, 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e B L A C K

, P R Y O R a n d F A Y

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :T o n y B u r t o n p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w o f t h e B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ’

( B I A ) f i n a l o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g h i s a p p e a l o f t h e I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( I J ) o r d e r

d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n h i s i n a b s e n t i a d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r

. A l t h o u g h B u r t o n

f i l e d h i s m o t i o n m o r e t h a n 1 2 y e a r s a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 1 8 0

- d a y t i m e p e r i o d

,

h e c o n t e n d s t h e i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f h i s c o u n s e l a m o u n t s t o a n e x c e p t i o n a l

c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t s h o u l d e x c u s e h i s f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r a t h i s 1 9 9 5 d e p o r t a t i o n

h e a r i n g

. A l t e r n a t i v e l y

, B u r t o n a r g u e s t h e t i m e p e r i o d s h o u l d b e t o l l e d b a s e d o n t h e

i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l

. A f t e r r e v i e w

, w e d e n y B u r t o n ’ s p e t i t i o n

. 1

A m o t i o n t o r e o p e n a r e m o v a l o r d e r e n t e r e d i n a b s e n t i a m a y b e r e s c i n d e d

o n l y “ u p o n a m o t i o n t o r e o p e n f i l e d w i t h i n 1 8 0 d a y s a f

t e r t h e d a t e o f t h e o r d e r o f

d e p o r t a t i o n i f t h e a l i e n d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r w a s b e c a u s e o f

e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. ” S e e 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 b ( c ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ( 1 9 9 4 )

. T h e s t a t u t e 2

d e f i n e s “ e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s ” a s c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e y o n d t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e

a l i e n

, “ s u c h a s s e r i o u s i l l n e s s o f t h e a l i e n o r d e a t h o f a n i m m e d i a t e r e l a t i v e o f t h e

“We re view the B I A’s denia l of a motion to reopen f or an a buse of discr etion.” Abdi v. 1

U.S. Att’y Ge n. , 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 ( 11th Cir. 1999). “[R] eview is limited to determining

whether there has bee n an exerc ise of administrative discr etion and whe ther the ma tter of

exercise ha s been a

rbitrar y or ca pricious.” Id. (interna l quotations omi tted).

Bur ton does not arg ue he did not re ceive proper notice of the hear ing in a ccor dance 2

with 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3) (B ) (1994) , and has thus aba ndoned the issue. See Se

pulveda v . U.S.

Att’y Ge n. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (“When an a ppellant fa ils to offer a

rg ument

on an issue, that issue is aba ndoned.”)

. 2a l i e n

, b u t n o t i n c l u d i n g l e s s c o m p e l l i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 b ( f ) ( 2 )

( 1 9 9 4 )

.

B u r t o n h a s n o t a l l e g e d a c o g n i z a b l e “ e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e

. ”

S p e c i f i c a l l y

, B u r t o n c l a i m e d h e d i d n o t a t t e n d h i s 1 9 9 5 d e p o r t a t i o n h e a r i n g

b e c a u s e h i s a t t o r n e y w a i t e d u n t i l t h e d a y b e f o r e t o n o t i f

y h i m o f t h e h e a r i n g

, a n d

h e w a s u n a b l e t o o b t a i n l a s t

- m i n u t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

. I n a b i l i t y t o f i n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

i s n o t s i m i l a r t o o r a s c o m p e l l i n g a s t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t o f s e r i o u s i l l n e s s o r

d e a t h

. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 b ( f ) ( 2 ) ( 1 9 9 4 )

. T h u s

, B u r t o n h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d h i s

e n t i t l e m e n t t o r e o p e n h i s p r o c e e d i n g s o n t h e b a s i s o f e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s

.

E v e n a s s u m i n g

, a r

g u e n d o

, e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g w a s a v a i l a b l e b a s e d o n

i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l

, t h e B I A d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y f i n d i n g i t

u n w a r r a n t e d i n t h i s c a s e

. B u r t o n f a i l e d t o a c t w i t h t h e r e q u i s i t e d u e d i l i g e n c e

, 3

w a i t i n g m o r e t h a n 1 2 y e a r s a f t e r t h e 1 8 0

- d a y p e r i o d e x p i r e d b e f o r e f i l i n g h i s

m o t i o n t o r e o p e n

. S e e I r w i n v

. D e

p ’ t o f V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s

, 1 1 1 S

. C t

. 4 5 3

, 4 5 7

– 4 8

( 1 9 9 0 )

. M o r e o v e r

, d e s p i t e h i s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e h e a r i n g

, B u r t o n n e v e r i n q u i r e d a s

t o h i s i m m i g r a t i o n s t a t u s p r i o r t o f i l i n g h i s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n

, a n d o n l y f i l e d h i s

m o t i o n t o r e o p e n a f

t e r h e w a s d e t a i n e d b y i m m i g r a t i o n o f f i c i a l s

.

P E T I T I O N D E N I E D

.

As Bur ton conce des, our de cisions in Abdi , 430 F.3d a t 1150, and Anin v. Reno , 188 3

F.3d 1273 ( 11th Cir. 1999), do not allow in absentia deporta tion orders to be e quitably tolled on

acc ount of ineff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel.

3