2008 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 ir c uit 2-21-2008 

# S h ah 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 . 06-5078

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

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 b y 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 i ll 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 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll 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 . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S h ah v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1553. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/1553H o n o rab le L o u is H . P o ll ak , S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 5078 

### NI LE SHKA MA R S HA H,

Peti ti on er v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, A tto rn ey G en eral o f

th e Un itedS tates, Re s ponde nt

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 77- 699- 780) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n . H e n ryS . D o g in Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February1, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge

* ( Fi l ed: February21, 2008) OP I NI ON2

PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge N i l esh K am ar Shah peti t i on s for r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ ( “B I A ”) or derof N ovember17, 2006, deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen a nd r econs i der . For the r eas ons gi ven bel ow , hi s pet i t i on w i l l be deni ed. I. Pet i t i oner , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thout i ns pect i on i n 1999. H e w as or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a i n 2001. I n 2004, he
s ucce s s ful l ym oved t o r eopen the pr ocee di ng. A ta s ubs equenthear i ng befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) , he conc eded r emovabi l i ty . H e appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , ar gui ng thathe
w o u ld b e su b

ject t o p erse cu ti o n an d tortu re in In d ia on ac co u n t of h is H ind u fa ith . T h e IJ f o u n d p e titio n e r’ s te s tim o n yn o t c re d ib le a n d o rd e re d h is re m o v a l o n O c to b e r 8 , 2 0 0 4 . Shah appea l ed, and the B I A aff i r m ed on J ul y17, 2006. Shah m oved forr econs i der at i on and r eopeni ng. O n N ovember17, 2006, the B I A deni ed thatm ot i on. Shah has pet i t i oned th is c o u rtf

o r r e v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s o rd e r o f

N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 . II. W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re c o n s id e r a n d re o p e n f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S e e G u o v . A sh c ro

ft , 386 F. 3d 556, 562 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . “U nderthe abus e of di s cr et i on sta n d a rd , the B o a rd ’s d e c isio n m u st b e re v e rse d if it i s a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, orc o n tra ryto l aw . ” S e v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 290 F. 3d 166, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arksPet i t i onerhas pet i t i oned forr evi ew onl yof the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen 1 a n d re c o n sid e r. B e c a u se p e tit io n e r d id n o t p e tit io n f o r re v iew o f

th e B IA ’s o rd e r o f

Ju ly 17, 2006, di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l of the I J ’ s deni al of r el i ef, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew th a t o rd e r. See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b); S t o n e v . I NS , 5 1 4 U .S . 3 8 6 , 4 0 4 -0 6 (1 9 9 5 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e ca nnotcons i derpet i t i oner ’ s cont ent i on thatthe B I A err ed i n thator der i n aff i r m i ng the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. 3 o mi t t e d ) . We r e v i e w de novo q u e stio n s o f law , inc lu d in g w h e th e r a p e tit io n e r’s rig h t to d u e p ro c e s s w a s v io la te d . See M udr i c v. A t t ’

y G en. , 4 6 9 F . 3 d 9 4 , 9 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III . P e tit io n e r m a k e s tw o c laim s o f e rro r w ith re g a rd to th e d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to reo p en an d rec o n side r. 1 A. Fi r s t , pet i t i onercont ends thatthe B I A deni ed hi m due pr oces s of l aw and abus ed its d isc re tio n b e c a u se th e B IA re f u se d to c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e p e tit io n e r su b m itt e d in
s u p p o rto f

h is m o tio n o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s “ tim e -b a rr e d .” U n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 ), 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
a p p e a rs to th e B o a rd th a t ev id e n c e so u g h t to b e o f f e re d . . . w a s n o t av a ilab le a n d c o u ld nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe form erhear i ng. ” See Caushiv. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 3 6 F . 3 d 2 2 0 , 2 3 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e B IA d id n o t fail to co n side r th e e v iden ce p rese n ted b yp eti ti o n er. T h e B IA ’s
o p in io n d isc u ss e s th e e v id e n c e in d e tail, co n c lu d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t p ro p e rly pr es ent ed i n a mot i on t o r eopen be caus e i tcoul d have be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atP e tit io n e r d o e s n o t co n ten d th a t 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 ) is itse lf u n c o n stitu tio n a l. 2 4 pet i t i oner ’ s 2004 hear i ng. Pet i t i onerdoes noti dent i fyerr or s i n the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on th a t th e e v id e n c e c o u ld h a v e b e e n p re s e n te d in 2 0 0 4 ; n o r a re a n ys u c h e rr o rs a p p a re n t. A cc o rdin g ly , w e f

ind n o m eritin p eti ti o n er’s ch all en g e, on this gro u n d , to the B IA ’s d en ial o f h is m o ti o n to reo p en an d rec o n side r. 2 B. Second, pet i t i onercont ends thatthe B I A deni ed hi m due pr oces s of l aw “s i nce he
w as nevergi ven the opportuni tyt o pr es enthi s cas e t o a j udge pr i ort o the or i gi nal or der b e in g e n te re d ” in 2 0 0 1 , i n abs ent i a a n d a lleg e d lyw ith o u t n o tice to p e tit io n e r. T h is
ar gum enti s w i thoutm er i t , beca us e pet i t i onerw as notr emoved on t he bas i s of the 2001
or derof r emoval . R ather , fol l ow i ng the r eopeni ng of hi s cas e i n 2004, pet i t i onerw as g iv e n a f u ll an d f a ir o p p o rtu n ityto p re se n t ev id e n c e o n h is o w n b e h a lf a t a h e a rin g h e ld on O ct ober8, 2004. Pet i t i oner , r epr es ent ed bycouns el , conce ded r emovabi l i tyand pr es ent ed evi dence i n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef. H i s pet i t i on w i l l ther efor e be d e n ied o n th is g ro u n d a s w e ll.