# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 A rgued M ay 8, 20 09 Deci ded M ay 27, 20 10 B efo re R IC H A R D D . C U D A H Y , Cir cu i tJudg e D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 0 8- 2996 C HIRA GK UM AR J. P ATEL,

P etitio ner,
v. E RIC . H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt . Pe titi on for Review from an O rd er of th e B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls N o. A 098- 208- 042.

O R D E R I. P et itio n er C h ira gk u m ar J. P at el a p p ea ls th e B oa rd of I m m igr at ion ’s (B IA ) d en ial of h is m ot ion to re op en an d /or re c on sid er th e ord er s issu ed d u rin g his re m ov al p ro c ee d in gs . Pa te l, a Hindu ci ti zen o fInd ia, ente re d the Un i ted S tat es surr epti ti ousl y in 199 8. In 199 2- 93, wh en he was sixtee n a nd s ti l ll i vingi n Indi a, he pa r ti ci pat ed i n a nt i
- M us l i m de m o ns tr at i o ns or gan ize d by Sh iv Se n a, a fu n d am en ta list, pr o-H in d u org an iza tio n . A t l eas t o ne dem onst ra ti on he a tt en ded tu r ne d v i o l en t, a nd Pa te ls aw s ev er alpe o pl e m ur deraM us l i m man b y b ea ting hi m and then byst abbi ng hi m with a tr i shud e, a tr i dent-l i ke sym bolo fthe H i nd u go d Shi va. Shor tl y a fterthe dem onst ra ti on, Pate lcl ai m s that M usl i m s dem anded that he coo perat e with NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 2996 Page 2



### Patel filed hi s appli cati on for asylum in April 2006. 1 th e po l i ce i nv es ti g at i o n int o the m ur derand thr ea te ne d hi s l i fe i fhe di d no t; l o ca lS hi v S en a m em ber s threa tened hi m with g ra ve danger i fh e d i d speak w i th the autho ri ti es. Pate lspok e w i th the pol i ce s hor tl y a fterthe eve nt, w ho app ar entl y request ed that he te sti fy a s a witnes s. Pa t e lwa s n e v e rp hy s i c a l l y h a r med
. I n 199 3, he l eft hi s ho m eto w n and w ent t o l i ve w i th hi s uncle i n anothe r part ofInd i a, w here he l i ved openl y a nd fi ni shed hi gh sc hool
. On a fe w occasi ons, he s urr epti ti ousl y v i si ted hi s par en ts i n h i s ho m et o wn, a l so wi th o uti nc i den t. Then, i n 19 98 , a l l eg edly a fte ry ea r s o fb eing afr ai d tha t “s o m eb o dy” woul d k i l lhi m i n Indi a be ca us e o fe ven ts s ur r o undi ngthe demons tr at i o ns , Pa te lc ame t o the Uni te d S ta te s wi ththe a ss i st an ce o fa human smugg l er . The D ep ar tm en t o f H om ela n d Sec u rit y in i tia te d rem ov al p ro c ee d in gs in la te 20 04 ba se d on h is fai lure to prop erly seek ad m issi on into th e U nited States. See 8 U . S. C
. § 1182(a)(6)( A )( i) ( 2006 ). D u r i n gth e p r o c e e d i n g s , P a t e lc o n c e d e d r e mo v ab i l i t y a n d a p p l i e d f o rp o l i t i c a la s y l u m, w ithh olding of rem oval an d d eferral of rem oval un d er th e U . N . C onv en tion A gainst Tortu re (CA T ) bas ed on p ersecu tion bec au se of his H ind u religi on. H e also r eq ue sted volun tary d ep artu re. In su p p ort of his ap p li cation, he offered th e U .S . D ep artm en t of State’s C ou nt ry Reporto n H um an Ri ghts Pract i ces i n I nd i a for2005 and the tes ti m ony ofhi s s chool m ate , Ketan Patel
. The BI A affi rm ed the deci si on o fthe I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( IJ ) to deny hi s app l i cati on because the asy l um appli cati on was unti m el y a nd bec ause Pateldi d not m eethi s bur den on h is ot h er su b st an tiv e c laim s. H e w as d en ied v olu n ta ry d ep ar tu re a s a m at te r of d isc re tio n, in par t be ca us e he was i nv o l ve d i n the v i o l en t S hi v S en a demons tr at i o n. Pateldi d not fi l e a ti m el y pet i ti on f ordi re ct r evi ew o fthe BI A ’ s o rder, so we do not have j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew thato rder
. S ee 8 U . S. C. § 1 252(b) ( 1) ( 2006 ) ( dir ect peti ti on f or 1 re vi ew m ust be fi l ed w i thi n 30 d ay s); Stonev. I . N . S. , 514 U . S. 386, 405-06 (1995 ) (statu tory d ea d lin e for p et itio n is jur isd ict ion al); A sere v. Go nz a les , 439 F.3d 378 , 380 (7th C ir. 2006) (sam e); A hm ed v. Ashcroft, 3 88 F . 3d 2 47, 2 48 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( di sc us singthe unr ev i ewabi l i tyo fthe und er l yi ng o rderi n the conte xt o fa m oti on t o re consi der) ; se e a l so Ja ber v. G o nz a les , 48 6 F . 3d 22 3, 2 28 n. 3 ( 6th Ci r . 20 07 ) ( st at i ngtha t, ev eni fde adl i ne s l i k e 12 52 ( b) ( 1) mightb e wai vabl e an d n on -j u ris d ict ion al d efe c ts , th e g ov er n m en t o bj ec te d to th e u n tim elin es s o f th e p et itio n, so it ne ed not be con side red on ap p eal). In st ea d of d ire c tly p et itio n in g for rev iew of th e B IA ’s init ial or d er , P at el w ait ed ex ac tly th re e m on th s a n d filed a m ot ion to re op en an d /or re c on sid er th e B IA ’s in itia l ord er . Th e B IA co ns true d thi s m o ti o n a s bo tha mot i o n t o r ec o ns i dera nd a m o ti o n to r eo pen ( an d we do the sa m e). T h e B IA d en ied t h e m ot ion t o re c on sid er b ot h b ec au se itw as u n tim ely a n d b ec au se it f ai l ed to i denti fy a ny er ro r off act orl aw . T h e B IA h eld thatthe m oti on t o re open was unsup port ed by an y new f acts and did notm ake a showing that Patelwould now beN o. 08
- 2996 Page 3

re a s o nab l y l i k e l y t o s uc c e e d o n the me r i t s o rtha th e wa s e l i g ib l e f o rv o l un t a r y de par ture . P a t e lth e n fi l e d th i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. II. 1. T o p oin t ou t er ro rs o f fa c t or la w , a p et itio n er m ay file on e m ot ion to rec on sid er , w ith in 3 0 da y s o fthe BI A’ s o r de r, a de c i s i o n tha th e i s r e mov ab l e fr o m the Uni t e d S t a t e s . S e e 8 U. S
. C. § 12 29 a( c) ( 6) ( A)- ( C)
. As P atel’s m oti o n t o r ec o ns i derwas fi l ed m o r e th an3 0 day s afte rthe BIA’s deci si on, se e id
. ; se e a l so 8 C. F.R . § 1 003. 2( b) ( 2) , and Pateldi d not ur ge the BI A to equi tabl y tol lthe deadli ne or prese nt any other ar gum ent w hy his m oti on t o re consi der was t i mel y, we c o nc l ud e i twa s p r o pe r l y di s mi s s e d. 2. P at el’s m ot ion to reo p en w as tim ely . See 8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 29 a(c )(7) (C )(i); 8 C .F.R . § 10 03 . 2( c) ( 2) . W e r ev i ew the BI A’s dec i si o n to den y a m o ti o n to r eo penf o rabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Se e K uc a na v. Ho lder (K u c an a I), __ U .S. __, 13 0 S.C t. 82 7, 83 4 (2 01 0); I. N . S. v. D oherty, 502 U . S. 31 4, 32 3 (1 99 2); Kucan a v. Ho lder ( K ucana I I ) , – F . 3d –, 20 10 W L 17550 14, at* 1 ( 7th Ci r. M ay 4, 2010 ) . A m oti on t o re open a re m ova lpro ceedi ng “s hal lst ate the new f acts that w i l lbe prove n at a hear i ng to be hel d i f the m oti on i s g ra nted, and shal lbe supp or ted byaffi davi ts oro ther evi denti ar y m ate ri al
. ” 8 U . S. C. § 1229 a( c) ( 7) ( B); see al so 8 C. F. R. § 1003 . 2( c) ( 1) . “A m oti on t o r eo penpr o ce eding s sh al lno t be g r an te d unl es s i t appe ar s to th e Bo ar d th ate vi den ce s o ug ht to be o ffer ed i s m ate ri aland w as not avai l abl e a nd co uld nothave bee n dis c ov er ed or p resen ted at the form er hearing
. ” 8 C
. F.R. § 1003 . 2(c)(1) . Pa t e lc i t e d n o n e w f a c t s an d a t t a c he d no n e w e v i de nc e t o h i s mo t i o n t o r e o pe n. Ins t e a d, the “ evi dence” he provi ded i n supp or t o f h is m ot ion w as that the BI A hel d that the IJ had i m proper l y dete rm i ned that he was a per secuto r– a point m or e pr oper l y m ade i n a m oti on t o r ec o ns i der
. Pa te lha s, th er efo r e, no t pr es en te d a ny ne w ev i den ce tha t woul d a l l o w us to fi nd th at t h e B IA a b u se d it s d isc re tio n in d ec lin in g to r eo p en h is p ro c ee d in gs . See , e.g., Khan v. Fil ip , 55 4 F .3d 68 1, 69 2 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ), ce r t . de ni e d 13 0 S .C t. 10 49 (20 10 ); Caus hi v. At ty. Ge n. of U . S. , 43 6 F .3d 22 0, 23 1 (3 d C ir. 20 06 ). M or eov er, wh i l e the B IA ind eed f ound that Pat elwas not a per secuto r, Pate li gnor es the BI A ’ s co ncl usi on that, despi te the IJ ’ s err or, the IJ p ro perl y deni ed Patel ’ s a pp l i cati on f or the a l ternati ve and i nd ependent re aso n that he ha d n ot m et hi s bur den to show that i t was m or e l i kel y than not that he would be perse cuted i n the future on ac c ou n t of a pro tect ed gr ou n d or th at h e w as e ligib le for a gr an t o f p ro te c tio n u n d er th e C A T . A m ot ion to reo p en is a “ p ro c ed u ra l d ev ice ” t o en su re th at th e pe tit ion er ’s cla im s “h av e be en ac c or d ed a re as on ab le hear i ng, ” a nd the BI A di d no t ab us e i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de c l i ning t o r e o pe n the pr o c e e di ng s as Patel has not m ade out a pri m a f aci e ca se f orthe re l i efhe s eek s. S ee Kucan a I , 13 0 S
. Ct. at83 7;N o. 08
- 2996 Page 4

see al so D oherty, 5 02 U. S
. a t 32 3- 24 ( a co ur t m aydeny a t i m ely mot i o n t o r eo peni fthe peti ti oner f ai l ed to est abl i sh a ( pri m a f aci e) basi s f or previ ousl y unava i l abl e r el i ef ) ; se e a l so Bao H ua Lin v. G o nz a les , 43 5 F.3d 70 8, 71 0 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); G uo v. A shcroft, 386 F.3d 556 , 563 (3d Cir. 20 04 ) (ex p lain in g t h at a “p rim a fac ie” ca se req u ire s th e p et itio n er to d em on st ra te a “r ea so n ab le like lih oo d ” th at h e is en tit led t o re lief); M at t e r of Coe l ho , 20 I& N De c. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (“[ I ]f w e concl ud e that o ur deci si on o n the appeal would be the s am e e ven i fthe proffer ed evi dence w ere already p art of th e record on app eal, w e w il l d en y the m otion to rem an d [ or reopen ]. ”). Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the peti ti on f orr evi ew i s D ENI ED .