T he Hon orab le Algenon L. Marbley, U nited State s Distri ct Judge for the So uth ern * Di str ict of Ohi o, s itti ng by des ig nati on. NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORPU BLIC ATION

Fi le Name: 06a 0709n.0 6 Fi led : September

29, 2006 No. 05- 3735 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IXTH C IR CU IT
AN DR EW S. HA NG O, Pet itione r,
v. ALB ERT O R. GONZALES , Atto rney General, Res pondent

. / On A ppeal from t he Boa rd of Im migration Ap pea ls

BEF OR E: MA RTIN and RY AN , C ircui t J udg es; and MA RB LEY , D is tr ict J udg e. * RY AN , C ircui t J udg e. The peti ti oner , Andrew S. Han g o, appeals a n o rd er of the Board of

Imm igration Appe als (BIA) ado pting and af f irming an Im migration Ju dge’s (IJ)
order deny ing H ang o’s moti on to reopen h is ca se. Beca use w e find that the BIA did not abuse i ts dis creti on, w e DE NY Han g o’s peti ti on for re v iew

. I. Andrew S. Ha n go is a ci ti z en of Tanz ani a, w ho ent ered th e U nit ed St ates on a stu dent v is a on September 16, 1997, but n ev er

att ended a ny

cl ass es. O n J une 17, 1998, he mar ri ed a Uni ted S tates C it iz en, C andi ce Han g o, w h o p e titi oned for H ang o to be g ra nted per manent resi dence

. The Immig ra ti on and Nat urali z ati on Ser v ic e ( IN S) deni ed th is a p p lic a ti o n in M a y 2 0 0 1 , a f te r f in d in g th a t t h e pa rt ie s “c o u ld no t p ro ve th a t t h e m a rria ge(N o. 05 -3 735) -2
-

w as leg it i ma t e . ” H a n g o w a s fu rt h e r a d v i s e d t h a t h e “ a p p e a r [ e d ] t o b e re mo v a b l e ” and
w oul d be pla ced in depor tati on proceedin gs if he d id not d epar t t he U nit ed St ates
v olu ntar il y . Hang o di d notdepar t, and a noti ce to ap pear w as is sued on Sep tember 4, 200 1. On Octob er 2, 20 02, af ter an a dm inistrative hearing in Detroit, Michig an, in w hich Han g o and his att or ney par ti ci pated, an I J deter mined that Han g o w as re mov abl e. The IJ g av e H ang o unt il Ja nuar y 30, 2003, to v olu ntar il y depart or

an alt er nate ord er

of re mov al to Tanz ani a w oul d tak e effect

. The IJ al so ordered that a bond of $5 00 be post ed w it h the IN S before October

9, 2002, or

the order

of re mov al w oul d tak e effect

. Hango did no t app eal th e de cision, bu t neith er did he leave the United State s. He cl aims thathe t ri ed to pos t t he bond on tw o oc cas ions, b ut t hat n o bond proces sor w as av ail abl e. Me anw hil e, on Januar y 28, 2003, he remarr ied , t his ti me to Tw il la Han g o, a Uni ted S tates C it iz en, a nd onc e ag ain so ug ht pe rmane nt re sid e n ce o n thi s b asi s. On Nov ember

3, 2003, Han g o fil ed an unti mely moti on to reopen h is ca se, arg uin g that “ex cept iona l circum stan ces” ma de h is case “elig ible for [ sua spon te] reop enin g” b y the IJ. The IJ deni ed th e moti on to re open on Nov ember 28, 2003, after findi ng thatH ang o “ faile d to f ile a time ly

mot ion to reope n.” Han g o fil ed an appeal with t h e BI A on Dec ember 22, 2003, arg uin g thatthe IJ abuse d her

di sc re ti on i n deny ing hi s mot ion to re open. On Febr u a ry 20, 2004, the BIA aff ir med the IJ’ s d eci si on w it hout is sui ng an o pin ion

. On M ay 28, 2004, the B IA reis sued the d eci si on, t re ati ng i t as thou g h i t w ere ent ered on that date. Han g o, meanw hil e, w as detai ned by i mmig rati o n a uthor it ies , w ho obt ain ed an emerg ency

trav el document from Tanz ani a, and soug ht to re mov e him by co mmerc ial fli g ht f rom Newark, New

Jersey, on May 12, 200 4. Hango resisted and the airline ref used to f ly(N o. 05 -3 735) -3
-

him w ithou t an esco rt. W hile Hango w as in New Jersey, he filed a pro se pet ition fo r a w rit of hab eas co rpus un der 28 U.S.C. § 224 1 in the United State s District C ourt for the District of New Je rs ey . He re q uest ed an immedi ate stay of the order

of remov al and a re v iew

of the B IA’ s a nd IJ ’s deni als of his moti on to re open. The di str ict c our t i nit ial ly di smi ss ed th e pet ition, b ut after the REAL ID Act be cam e law on M a y 12, 20 05, the district cou rt transf erred th e case to this cou rt pursua nt to 8 U.S.C. § 125 2(a)(5). Accordingly , Hango’s § 2241 habeas co rp us peti ti on w as conv erte d i nto a peti ti on for re v iew before thi s c our

t. On J une 6, 2005, se v eral day s a fter t he di str ict cour t ordered the ca se transfer re d to t his ci rc uit , H ang o fil ed a moti on for the BIA to reopen and rec onsi der its M ay 28, 2004, deci si on notto re open or to ex er ci se it s “ sua spont e” auth or ity on the t heor

y thathe w as now el ig ibl e for adj ust ment of st atus due to hi s mar ri ag e to Tw il la Hang o. On J une 30, 2005, the BIA d eni ed th e moti on as “ unti mely ” and refused to ex erci se it s s ua s ponte author ity . Han g o does not appear to hav e made a ny

appeal from t he BI A’ s J une 30, 2005, deter minat ion

. II. T h e d e n ia l o f

a m o t io n t o re o p e n is re vie we d fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re t io n . Ha d d a d v. Gonz ale s, 437 F .3d 5 15, 5 17 ( 6th C ir . 200 6)

. This s tandard req uires us to “ ‘de ci de
w hether the deni al of [the] moti on to reopen . . . w as made w it hout a rati onal ex pla nati on, inexplicably dep arted f rom e stab lished p olicies, or rested on an impe rmissible ba sis such as invi diou s discriminat ion againsta particula r race o r g roup .’” Id. (i nte rnal quotat ion m arks and c it ati ons omit ted)

. Fur ther more, a moti on to re open “mus t be filed w it hin 90 d ay s o f the da te of en tr

y of a fi na l ad mi ni s trat i v e orde r of rem ov al , de po rta ti on , or ex c l us i on .” 8 C. F. R. §§ 1 003.23( b) (1 ) and 100 3.2( a)

.(N o. 05 -3 735) -4
-

In t his ca se, the Nov ember 3, 2003, moti on to reopen w as filed w it h the IJ more tha n a y ear after the or ig ina l deci si on and well b e yond the a ppl ic abl e 90- day ti me per iod

. Han g o ’ s a rg u me n t t h a t t h i s c o u rt s h o u l d o v e rt u r n t h e d e n i a l , w h i c h w a s b ased on unti meli ness , i s u nconv inc ing

. He cl aim s th a t the IJ “a bused her di sc re ti on by

fail ing to
re open an d c onduc t an ev ide nti ar y hear ing ” on the re fusal of t he IN S to acc ept h is bond
mo ney and th at th e BIAe rr ed b y af f irming this. Instea d of add ressing the regulatory
e xce p ti o n s fo r an un ti m e ly pe ti ti o n un d e r 8 C. F. R. §§ 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(4 ) o r 10 0 3 .2 (c) (3 ), Ha n go re li es on In re X -G -W , 22 I. & N . D ec. 7 1 ( BI A 1 9 9 8) , w here the BIA reopened an immi g ra ti on c ase ev en th oug h the appropr iat e reg ula ti on for re openi ng—8 C .F .R . § 1003.2( c) (2 )— offered no re li ef to the peti ti oner . In so doi ng , t he BI A reli ed upon i ts “l imi ted dis creti onar

y pow ers” to act

su a s ponte. X -G -W , 22 I. & N . D ec. at 73. Hango’s re li a n c e o n this case is mistaken . Not only w as the ex cept ion in X-G- W spec ific all y

crafted for as y lum cl aims based on p opul ati on c ontrol pol ic ies , butthe BIA has since ab and one d the holdin g. See In re G-C-L, 23 I. & N. D ec. 35 9, 36 1-62 (BIA 200 2). Fur ther , X -G -W w as an ex er ci se of the BI A’ s s ua s ponte author ity , and thi s cour t refused to rev iew

a s imi lar

matte r in Ha rchenko v . I NS , 379 F .3d 4 05, 4 10 ( 6th C ir . 200 4) , after noti ng that“ [t] he dec is ion w h e th er to inv oke sua spont e aut hor ity i s c ommitt ed to the unf ette red discretio n of the BI A.” In s um, w e c annot find th at t he ag ency abus ed i ts dis creti on by di smi ss ing su ch a lon g ov erdue moti on to reopen, nor can w e inter pose our

w il l ov er that of the ag ency

i n the
ex er ci se of its su a s ponte author ity . The sec ond moti on to reope n a n d r e cons ide r, w hic h H ang o fil ed w it h the BIA on June 6, 20 05, w as deni ed by the BIA on J une 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , y et t here i s n o i ndi cat ion i n the(N o. 05 -3 735) -5
-

record th at Han go appe aled thatdecision to this cou rt. Despite this , h e a rg u e s thatthis
cour t i s n ot “ absol utel y

bar re d” from rev iew ing the meri ts of t h e J u ne 30, 2005, BIA decision beca u s e t h e joint ap pen dix of this app eal includ es the adm inistrative record
re lat ed to hi s June 6, 2005, moti on. W e find no author ity for t his proposi ti on. W hil e t he Supreme C our

t has i nst ru cte d tha t an ali en w ho s eeks rev iew of a BIA peti ti on i n the co urts “may al so seek

ag ency re co n sid e ra ti on of the order” as w ell as co urt “ re v iew ” of that
recon siderat ion, a nd tha t “[w]he re t he o rig inal pe tition is still before the court, th e cou rt shall
conso lidate the two petition s,” the Cou rt has stea dfastly reaf f irmed t hatsu ch “rev iew ” must be soug ht w it hin the a ppl ic abl e ti me l imi t or a c our t of appeal s l ack s j ur is dicti on ov er the matter

. Stone v . INS, 514 U. S. 386, 405-0 6 ( 1995)

. This i ncl udes “tw o s eparate p eti ti ons filed to re v iew

tw o s eparate fin al orders.” I d. at405. In t his ca se, H ang o fil ed no appeal of the BI A’s June 30, 20 05, decision a n d m a d e no indicatio n tha t he sou ght rev iew of it other than to re fere n ce t he ag ency dec is ion i n the mer itarg uments of his October 26, 2005, br ief. As the appli cabl e time li mit of 30 day s h as lon g si nce ex pired, t his co urt doe s not h av e j ur is dicti on to rev iew the June 30, 2 005, order of the BIA. See Prekaj v . I NS , 384 F.3d 265 , 268 (6th Cir. 2004 ). III . For the abov e reason s, w e DENY Andre w Hango’s petition for re v iew o f t he BI A’s
order

.