2003 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 Thir d C ir c uit
7-30-2003 

# K o valev v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3729

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ko valev v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 334. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/334NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-3729

UNITED STATES EX REL. EVGIENIKOVALEV
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, AS ATTO RNEY G ENERA L OF THE U NITED STATES; JAMES W. Z IGL AR, COMMISS IONE R OF THE IMMIGRATION & NATU RALIZATION SERVICE; WARDEN OF B ERKS C OUNTY PR IS ON Evgieni Kovalev,

Appellant

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania D.C. CivilAction No. 02-cv- 04562 (Honorable MichaelM. Baylson)

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

July28, 2003 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , RE ND EL L a nd A M BR O, Circu it Judges (Fil ed July30, 2003)2 OPINI ON OF THE COURT
SC IRI CA , Chief Judge
. Appellant

Evgieni Kovalev, a nati ve and citizen of Russi a, ent ered the United States o n A pril 30, 1 989 as a n on-im migra nt visitor f or plea sure w ith auth orizatio n to remain onl y until Octobe r 12, 1989. He overstay ed his t ourist visa. In December 1989 he file d his fi rst application for asy lum which was denied. In March 1991, theImmigration & N aturaliza tion S ervice (“IN S”) in itiated de portatio n pro ceed ings, ch arging him pursuant to former s ecti on 241(a)( 1)(C)(i ) of the I mmigrati on and National ity Act (“INA ”) for rem aining in the U nited States w ithout permission . Kova lev appea red befo re an Im migra tion Ju dge ( “IJ”) a nd co nced ed tha t he w as de portab le; how ever, h e aga in applie d for asy lum and withhol ding of deport ation. The IJ denie d the asy lum appli cati on on March 30, 1993, but granted Koval ev permiss ion to vol untari ly depart to Russia on or be fo re Ju ne 30 , 19 93 . T he IJ’ s o rd er pr ov id ed th at, if K ov ale v d id no t d ep ar t v ol un tar ily, the pri vilege would be withdrawn without further notice or proceedi ngs and the or der of deportat ion to Russi a would become immediat elyeffecti ve. App. 108-112. One da y be fo re he was sc he dul ed to volunt ar il y de pa rt Kov al ev ap pe ar ed at

an INS offic e and signe d a V olun tary Dep arture N otice, w hich e xtend ed his depa rture d ate to July7, 1993. The Volunt ary Departure Noti ce speci fical ly informed hi m of the consequences of f

aili ng to depart , inc luding t hat he would be i neligible to apply for3

certain forms of r elie f, inc luding adj ustment of s tatus , for fi ve years aft er the s cheduled date of de parture. Ko valev w as given o ral notice of the c ontents of the Volun tary Departure Noti ce in Engli sh only . Kovalev di d not lea ve the Unit ed State s on July 7, 199 3. A cco rdin gly, on Sep tem ber 14, 1 993 , the I NS issu ed a W arra nt o f D epo rtatio n. On A pril 11, 1994, the IN S sent K ovalev a “ bag an d bagg age” letter telling him to rep ort for d epor tation o n a sc hedu led da te. Ko valev did n ot repo rt to the IN S D epor tation U nit on the dat e schedule d as inst ructed. On M arch 31, 1998, Kovalev appli ed to reope n the deport ation proceedings and for suspens ion of deport ation unde r former I NA § 244(a) and Section 203 of t he Nicaraguan Adjust

ment and CentralAmerican Relie f Act of 1997 (“NACAR A”). The INS opposed the moti on, urgi ng the IJto denyit on di scretionarygrounds. On August 31, 1998, the IJ deni ed the moti on to reopen a s a matte r of dis creti on, becauseKovalev pre vio usly h ad f ailed to d epa rt vo lun tarily as pro mis ed. A pp. 1 92. On S eptemb er 23, 199 9, the Boa rd of Im migration A ppeals dism issed Ko valev’s appe al, hold ing tha t the IJ h ad no t abus ed his discre tion. T he B oard expla ined: “ Wh ile secti on 309(g) of [t

he Ill egal Immigr ation Reform and Immigrant Respons ibil ity Act] as
ame nded by section 203 (c) of NA CA RA , prov ides tha t motio ns to re open filed b y certain alie ns, suc h as responde nt, are exempt fr om time and number l imit ations , it does not exempt them from showing t hat the y meri t reopeni ng as a matt er of dis creti on.” App. 203. Kovalev did not seek review of the B IA’s order in a court of appeals.1 The traveldocuments expi red on October 1, 2002. 4 On M arch 27, 20 01, Ko valev’s adu lt daughter bec ame a n aturalized citizen. In April or May 2001, she submitted a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative as a prerequi sit e for Kovalev t o adjust his st atus t o that of

a lawful permanent resi dent. At the same time Kovalev s ubmitt ed a Form I-485 appl ication to adj ust hi s stat us. On June 12, 2002, duri ng his i ntervi ew pursuant t o this applic ation, the INS learned of the out standi ng de po rta tio n o rd er an d t oo k K ov ale v i nt o c us to dy. Less than a month late r, on J uly 9, 2002, Koval ev, through counsel , fil ed a peti tion for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in United St ates Dis tri ct Court f or the East ern District

of Pennsy lvania . Kovalev sought relea se from cust ody pendi ng the BIA’s consider ation of

a motion t o reopen to c onsider his appl ication for adj ustment of stat us. He als o asked that

the March 1993 deport ation order be inva lidated. While t he habeas petiti on was pending the I NS received travel doc uments for Kovale v from the Russian Consulate. 1 In an order entere d on September 30, 2002, the Distri ct Court de nied the ha beas petition . Ko valev then f iled this a ppea l. We will affirm. K ovalev is in cu stody pursuant to a f inal order of d eportation. In orde r to pre vail in f edera l habe as K ovale v m ust sho w th at the f inal ord er of d epor tation is “in v iolat ion of th e C ons titutio n or law s ... of the U nited Sta tes.” 28 U .S.C . § 22 41( c)(3 ). It i s not enough t o show abuse of disc reti on and thus a fe deral habeas peti tion i s not an ideal vehicl e for chal lenging a discr etionary decisi on of the Board of I mmigrati on5

Ap pea ls. Cf. Im m ig ra tio n & N atu ra liz ati on Se rv . v. St . C yr , 533 U.S. 289, 314 n.38 (2001) (“ [T]he scope of r eview on habeas i s conside rablymore limi ted than on [Administr ative Procedures Act]-st yl e revie w.”). For

a full consider ation of

his i ssues Ko vale v sh oul d ha ve p etitio ned for rev iew of th e B IA ’s S epte mb er 2 3, 19 99 d ecis ion
. An y petitio n fo r rev iew sub mitte d no w w oul d be unt ime ly, unf ortu nate ly. See M alvoisin v. Immigration & Natural ization Serv. , 268 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir. 2001) (thirty dayappeal per iod of p erm ane nt ru les, 8 U.S .C. § 125 2(b )(1), i s m and ator y and juris dicti ona l). We have caref ully consid ered th e reco rd, and Ko valev ’s argu men ts on a ppea l in the cont ext of whether

the deni al of di scretionaryreli ef here i nvolved a vi olati on of fed eral l aw or th e C ons titutio n. See Chmakov v. Blackman , 266 F.3d 210, 214 (3d Cir. 2001) (feder al court s ret ain sect ion 2241 habeas j urisdi ction ove r peti tions from crimi nal and non -crim inal a liens alike ). See also Liu v. I mmigrati on & Naturalization Serv. , 293 F.3 d 36 , 40 ( 2d C ir. 20 02) (sam e). K ova lev o ther wis e do es n ot q ualif y for h abe as re lief. Ko vale v ha s arg ued that t he M arch 199 3 or der of d epo rtatio n vi olate s 8 U .S.C . § 1252b(e)( 2) (re pealed) because he di d not rece ive an adequate warning in Russ ian about th e co nse que nce s of

fai li ng t o de part v ol unt ar il y . He al so h as ar gue d that NACARA mandates discr etionary reli ef even though he failed to voluntarily depart. We conclude, however, that thes e arguments, although c ognizabl e in feder al habeas , do not pr ovide a basis f or habeas r elie f.2 The perti nent subpar agraphs of former secti on 1252b(e)( 2) are s et fort h on page 14 of the Dist rict Court’s Memorandum. Because we write onlyfor the parti es we will not repeat the st atute here. 6 The argument that section 1252b(e) (2)(B) was vi olate d when Kovalev did not receiv e the p rope r wa rning s in R ussian conc erning the co nseq uenc es of failing to voluntarily

depart does not warrant habeas relief for thr ee reasons. First , he did not raise this c laim bef ore the I J or th e B IA wh en h e file d hi s m otio n to reo pen in 1 998
. Ex hau stion of a dm inistr ative rem edie s is a p rere qui site to hab eas relie f. Bradshaw v. Carlson , 682 F .2d 10 50, 10 52 (3 d C ir.1981 ) (per c uriam ); Yi v. Maugans , 24 F.3d 500, 503 -04 (3 d C ir. 1994 ) (add ressing form er 8 U .S.C. § 110 5a(c)) . Wh en he applie d to reopen deport ation proceedings and for suspens ion of deport ation Koval ev should have present ed his ar gument that , becauseof a language pr oblem, he di d not unders tand the VoluntaryDeparture Noti ce. Second, sect

ion 1252b(e) (2) i s irrelevant to the i ssue pres ented bythe habeas petit ion. 2 Under former sect ion 1252b(e) , anyalie n allowed t o depart voluntari ly who remained i n the Unite d States after the schedul ed date of depar ture, other t

han because of excepti onal ci rcumstance s, was not eligible for, among other things, suspensi on of deportat ion under I NA § 1254 or adjustment or change of st atus under

INA §§ 1255, 125 8, or 125 9 fo r a p erio d of five years a fter the s che dul ed d ate o f de par ture . See gene rally Mardones v. McElroy , 197 F .3d 61 9, 622 -23 & n.1 (2 d C ir. 1999 ). Ho we ver, if proper warni ngs were not gi ven in a l anguage the al ien unders tood, he or she would not3 Kovalev has indi cated i n his re ply brief t hat a moti on to reopen i s pending i n New York Immigrati on Court, apparentl y conce rning an appl ication to adj ust st atus. Habeas reli ef is unava ilabl e with res pect t o the pendi ng motion t o reopen becaus e Kovalev has not yet ex hau sted adm inistr ative rem edie s. Bradshaw , 682 F .2d at 1 052 ; Yi , 24 F.3d at 503-04. 7 be pr even ted fro m se eking these f orm s of re lief du ring the five yea r perio d. Th e statute is irreleva nt to K ovale v’s req uest fo r hab eas relie f bec ause , even if there wa s a failu re to give noti ce in a l anguage Kovalev unders tood, t he stat ute would not mandate, for
exam ple, adjustm ent of status o r susp ensio n of depo rtation. It w ould mere ly, if applic able, invali date the five- year bar with respect to applying for adjustment of status or suspensi on of deportation. 3 Third, the st atute requires onlythat not ice be pr ovided in a

language the ali en underst ands. Kovalev’ s assertion at this late stage i n the proce edings t hat he needed a trans lati on into Russi an is not convinci ng enough to warrant habeas rel ief. The Distri ct Court found: Giv en th at

Kov al ev ha s l iv ed in th e Un ited St at es si nc e 1 989 , h ad two separate, pri vatel y r etai ned, l awyers during hi s prior INS proceedings , and signed hi s name severaltimes to documents acknowledgi ng his waiver of certain ri ghts, the Court c annot accept Kovalev’s ar guments that he did not have any knowledge that one consequence of hi s ignori ng the pri or volu ntary dep ortation orde rs wa s to pu t his con tinued prese nce in this countryat ri sk. Furt

her, Kovale v’s te sti mony, t hat his prior

lawyer s kept reassuring him that the y would t ake care of t hings, does not pr ovide any legal ly justifiable rea son for this Court to find t hat Kovalev hi mself did not und erstan d w hat w as go ing o n bef ore the INS , or that h e w as co mp letely unaware of the consequ ences of his ignoring the deportati on orders. (District Court

Memorandum, at ¶ 41.) We agree and find no er ror i n this conclusi on by8

the D istrict Co urt. With respe ct to K ovale v’s sec ond claim , NA CA RA does not m anda te relief; it only made Kovalev eli gible to applyfor rel ief where he ot herwise would have be en ineligib le. Prior to 199 6, und er sectio n 24 4(a) o f the Im migra tion an d N ationa lity Act, the Attorney Generalcould grant suspensi on of deportation, assuming the good moral chara cter an d har dship requ ireme nts w ere m et, to an a lien w ho h ad be en ph ysically present in the U nited States for a c ontinuou s period of not less than sev en years imm edia tely pre ced ing the d ate o f a s usp ens ion of d epo rtatio n ap plica tion . 28 U .S.C . § 1254(a)( 1) (re pealed) . The Il legal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibi lit

y Act (“II RIRA”) created a “s top-time” rul e, st opping the c lock upon the initiati on of dep orta tion pro cee din gs. See 8 U .S.C. § 110 1 no te (IIR IRA § 30 9(c)(5 )); see gene rally Pinho v. I mmigrati on & Naturalization Serv. , 249 F.3 d 18 3, 18 8 (3 d C ir. 20 01)
. Previousl y, alie ns invol ved in deport ation proceedings t hat were si gnific antly

delay ed could accumulate suffi cient continuous physi cal pre sence to qua lify for suspens ion of deportat ion by apply ing for s uspension of deportat ion well after de portation procee dings
we re in itiated
. See Useinovic v. Immigration & Naturali zati on Serv. , 313 F.3d 1025, 1033-3 4 (7 th Cir . 200 2). The Nicaraguan Adjustment and CentralAmerican Relie f Act, Pub. L. No. 105- 100, ti t. I I, 111 St at. 2160, §§ 201 et seq. (19 97) , allow ed N icarag uans and C uban s to adjust their immigration st atus automatical ly . It also exempt ed cert ain othe r ali ens, bas ed9

on their nationa l ori gin, from the new stop-time rule . Pursua nt to s ecti on 203(a) of NAC ARA , the new stop-time rule , for a pe riod of time, di d not apply to nati onals of severalcountri es, i ncluding t he Soviet Union, Russia, and any republic of the former So viet U nio n. See Appiah v. Immigr ation & Natural ization Serv. , 202 F.3d 704, 708 (4 th Cir. 2000 ) (citing NA CA RA § 203(a ), 111 Stat. at 2196 -97). Kovalev was prima faci e eli gible to file a motion t o reopen becaus e he comes from a NAC ARA -speci fied count ry , he ent ered the United States before December 31, 1990, and he a ppl ied f or a sylum bef ore De cem ber 31, 1 991
. Use inov ic , 313 F.3d at 1034 (citing NACA RA § 203(a)(1); 8 C.F .R. § 3.4 3(d )(4))
. NA CA RA allow ed K ovale v to file
one “tim ely” m otio n to reo pen his d epo rtatio n pr oce edin gs, see Use inov ic , 313 F.3d at 1034-35 n.9 ( discuss ing NACA RA’s specialprovisi on for all owing motion t o reopen notwiths tanding 90- day time li mit of 8 C.F .R. § 3.23 ), but it did not g uaran tee a f avor able exerci se of dis creti on under INA § 244(a). NAC ARA did not af fect how disc reti on was to be exer cised bythe Immigr ation J udge in deci ding whether a motion t o reopen and applic ation f

or suspens ion of deport ation s hould be granted. Accordi ngly , NACA RA w as not viol ated her e because Kovalev was al lowed to fi le his motion t o reopen and applic ation f

or suspens ion of deport ation, and his r equest for reli ef from the fi nal order of deportat ion was dulyconsidered by an i mmigrati on judge and the Board of Immigration Ap pea ls.10

We find n o oth er erro rs in this c ase w arrantin g hab eas relie f. Alie ns are entitled to sub stan tive d ue p roc ess. See Chi Thon Ngo v. Immigrati on & Naturalization Serv. , 192 F.3d 390, 396 ( 3d Cir. 1999) . The decis ion of the Immigration Judge t o deny t he motion to reopen and applic ation f or suspens ion of deport ation a s a matte r of dis creti on was not arbit raryand capri cious ( Appellant ’s Brie f, at 19), and t

hus not a vi olati on of substantive du e p ro ce ss . A su bs tan tiv e d ue pr oc es s v io lat io n i s e sta bl ish ed on ly ifth e g ov er nm en t's actio ns a re irra tion al or mo tivat ed b y con stitutio nally im per mis sible fac tors. See Sam eric Co rp. of D elaw are, Inc . v. City of P hilade lphia , 142 F.3 d 58 2, 59 0-9 1 (3 d C ir. 19 98)
. The IJ refus ed to “condone” Koval ev’s fai lure to depart voluntari ly as promise d, and Kovalev has poi nted to no authori ty to indi cate that the IJ’s emphasis on t his factor was consti tuti onally

impermiss ible. Only exce ptionalcircumst ances bey ond the control of a n alie n ex cus e the failu re to dep art v olu ntar ily. Mardones v. McElroy , 197 F.3d at 624 (“An alien ... all owed to depart the United States voluntarily was required to do so unless i t was impossible for phy sicalreasons, such as serious i llnes s, or by r eason of a moral imper ative , such as the death of an immediat e relative. ”) The recor d does not show
exce ptiona l circum stance s; it show s an a ttemp t to dela y departu re in an effo rt to rem ain in the c oun try unti l suc h tim e as a vis a m igh t bec om e av ailab le. See Fan Wan Keung v. Immigration & Naturali zati on Serv. , 434 F.2d 301 ( 2d Cir. 1970) (disc ussing i mproper
man ipulatio n of privileg e of v olun tary depa rture). T he IJ’s decisio n com ported with app licab le law and wa s no t arb itrary an d ca pric iou s.4 Kovalev fil ed a motion t o staydeportat ion in t his Court , which we denied. Finall y, we agree with the District Court that Koval ev’s post -deport ation order detention is lawful and that the re is a signi ficant likel ihood that

he will be removed in the for ese eab le fu ture . See Zad vydas v . Dav is , 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). His Russian citize nsh ip h as b een esta blish ed a nd t rav el do cum ents are o btain able . “ Zadvydas does not save an al ien who fail s to provi de requested documentati on to effect uate hi s removal. ” Pelich v. Immigration & Naturali zati on Serv. , 329 F.3d 1057, 10 60 (9 th Cir . 200 3). Furthermore, the issue whether Kovalev i s enti tled to a stayof deportation pendi ng the outco me o f his m otion to reop en to a djust h is status is m oot b ecau se ther e is no merit to the habeas petit

ion. 4 The p ending m otion to reope n and a pplication to adjust status are not pre sen tly bef ore the C our t. We will affi rm the order of the Dist

rict Court dis missi ng the habeas petit ion.

/s/ Anthony J. Sciri ca Chief Judge