2007 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 3-13-2007 

# K oura 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 . 05-5233

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_2007

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 2007 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
" Kour a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1493. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007/1493* T he H onor abl e W i l l i am H . Y ohn J r . , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct

of 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. 05- 5233
F AT HI I BR AHI M AL Y KOUR A, P eti ti o n er

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF THE U NI TED STATES R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of Fi nal D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. : A 90- 265- 065) I m m i gr at i on J udge: D ani el M ei s ner Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber14, 2006 B e f o re : S M IT H a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d Y O H N , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 13, 2007) OP I NI ON2

Y O H N , D is tr i ct

Judge Fathi I br ahi m A l yK our a pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( B IA ) af firm ing the d en ial b ythe im m igrati o n jud g e (IJ) of K o u ra’s app l i cat i on for cancell at i on of rem ov al . F or the reasons t hat fol l ow , w e w i l l dis m i ss K o u ra ’s p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w .
I . Ko u r a , a n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f Eg yp t , e n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s l a wf u l l y , u s i n g a B2 vi s i t orvi s a, on Sept ember18, 1985. H e s t ay ed i n the U ni t ed St at es l ongerthan perm i t t ed, s ubj ect i ng hi m s el f t o deport at i on. K our a’ s tw o y ounges tchi l dr en, H aj erFathi K o u ra, ag e f

ift ee n , an d B elal F athi K o u ra, ag e tw elve , are U . S . cit izen s. B elal w as b o rn w i th a conge ni t al heartdefe ctand underw entcar di ac s ur geryw hen he w as one- y earol d; h e is s u b je c t to p e ri o d ic e v a lu a tio n s b ya d o c to r a n d a tte n d s a s p e c ia l s c h o o l. A ft erbei ng pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , K our a appl i ed forcanc el l at i on of
re m o v a l u n d e r § 2 4 0 A (b ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( IN A ), 8 U .S .C . § 1229b( b) . A ft erhear i ng, the I J found thatK our a had f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h thathi s r emoval
w o u ld w o rk “ a n e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip ” o n h is q u a lify in g f a m ily
m em b ers, as p er § 2 4 0 A (b)(1 )(D ) of the IN A , § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(D ), an d , co n seq u en tl y , the IJ d e n ied h is p e tit io n f

o r re lief. K o u ra a p p e a led th e d e n ial o f th e c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l to the B I A , ar gui ng the I J had err ed i n notfi ndi ng thatK our a’ s chi l d, B el al , w oul d s uffe r exce pt i onal and unus ual har ds hi p i f K our a w er e r emoved, and the I J had err ed and a bus edK o u ra a lso a rg u e s th a t th is c o u rt sh o u ld a d d re ss w h e th e r K o u ra ’s f a ilu re to c o m p lyw ith 1 the I J ’ s al t ernat e or derof vol unt arydepartur e cons t i tut es an addi t i onal j ur i s di ct i onal bar t o the r el i ef s ought , an i s s ue w e not ed pr evi ous l yi n Mendez

- R eye s v. A t t ’ y G en. of

the U
. S. , 428 F. 3d 187, 109 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , the r es pondenthas notar gued or in tim a ted in a n yw a yth a t K o u ra is in e lig ib le f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l b a se d o n h is n o n c o m p lia n c e w ith th e g ra n t o f v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re , th e re f o re , th is is s u e is ir re le v a n t. 3 hi s di s cr et i on byappl y i ng the w r ong l egal s t andar d t o K our a’ s cas e; the B I A aff i r m ed and adopt ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. K our a t i m el yfi l ed the i ns t antpet i t i on forr evi ew ar gui ng the B I A appl i ed the w r ong l egal s t andar d t o hi s appl i cat i on and the I J di s pl ay ed a l evel of bias that am ou nted t o a d epri vati on of d ue p rocess . 1

I I . K o u ra a rgu es th at his rem o v al pro ce ed ing s w ere d ef ici en t bec au se th e B IA di s r egar ded i t s ow n pr ece dent i al deci s i ons . I n Me n d ez-Mo ra n c h e l v. A sh c ro ft , 338 F. 3d 1 7 6 , 1 7 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), w e h e ld th a t “§ 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(i) s trip s u s o f ju risd ictio n to
r evi ew cert ai n di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons underthe I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ctas e n u m e ra ted b yth e sta tu te,” a n d sp e c if ica lly , “w h e th e r a n a lien m e e ts th e h a rd sh ip
r equi r ementi n 8 U . S. C . § 1229b i s s uch a di s cr et i onaryj udgm ent . ” I d. W e al s o not ed th a t th is d e c isio n w a s c o n sis ten t w ith o th e r c irc u its th a t co n sid e re d w h e th e r th e h a rd sh ip
re q u ir e m e n t w a s d is c re tio n a ry a n d th u s u n re v ie w a b le . I d. T her efor e, beca us e w e ca nnot s ucce s s ful l ydet erm i ne w hetherthe B I A ’ s pr ece dent i al deci s i ons w er e corr ect l yappl i ed bythe B IA or the IJ w i tho ut anal y zi ng the m eri t s of t he d eci si on t o d enyK ou ra’ s r equ est f o r c a n c e llatio n , w h ich is a d isc re tio n a ryju d g m e n t, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to e n ter tain4

K o u ra ’s a rg u m e n t.

III . K o u ra a rg u e s th a t th e IJ in th is c a se d isp layed a b ias to w a rd K o u ra a n d h is p re v io u s a tto rn e yth a t am o u n ted to a d e p riv a tio n o f h is s o le o p p o rtu n ityf

o r a h e a rin g , in vi ol at i on of hi s due pr oces s r i ghtunderthe Fi fth A m endment . T he R E A L I D A ct , by addi ng § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) t o the I N A , r es t or ed j udi ci al r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and q u e s tio n s o f

la w p re s e n te d in p e titio n s f o r r e v ie w o f

f in a l r e m o v a l o rd e rs . P apageor gi ou v. G onz al es , 413 F. 3d 356, 358 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , “[a ] s a gene r al rul e, an al i en m ustexh austal l adm i nis trat i ve rem edies avail able t o h i m as of ri gh tbefo re the B IA as a pr er equi s i t e t o r ai s i ng a cl ai m befor e us . ” B onhom etr e v. G onz al es , 414 F. 3d 442, 447 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( emphasi s om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) and Y an Lan W

u v. A sh c ro ft , 393 F. 3d 418, 422 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ) . A pet i t i oneri s deemed t o have e xhaus t ed h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies “ so lo n g a s a n im m ig ra tio n p e tit io n e r m a k e s s o m e e f f o rt, how everi ns uffi ci ent , t o pl ace the [BIA ] on not i ce of a s tr ai ght forw ar d i s s ue bei ng r ai s ed on appea l . ” Ya n L a n Wu , 393 F. 3d at422 ( ci t i ng B h isk i v. A sh c ro ft , 373 F. 3d 363, 367- 68 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). A c laim o f IJ b ias is s u b

jec t to a d m in istra tiv e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n ts
m a n d a tin g th a t th e is s u e b e ra is e d b e f o re th e B IA . A b du lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 596 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Sa n c h ez - Cr u zv . I NS , 2 5 5 F . 3 d 7 7 5 , 7 8 0 (9th C ir . 2001) ) . I n hi s appea l t o the B I A , K our a di d notputthe B I A on not i ce of , orbr i ng up any i s s ues r el at ed t o, the I J ’ s bi as . T hus , beca us e K our a’ s due pr oces s cl ai m coul d have be enW e a lso n o te th a t ev e n if th e c o u rt w e re to re a c h th e m e rits o f K o u ra ’s c laim o f

IJ b ias , it 2 w oul d fai l beca us e a r evi ew of the hea r i ng tr ans cr i ptand dec i s i on does notr evea l the appea r ance of bi as orpr ej udi ce on the partof the I J . T he I J di d notdi s pl aya demeanor r emot el yaki n t o the mi s conductthi s courthas been pr es ent ed w i th i n pas tcas es w her e a d u e p ro c e ss c laim w a s s u sta in e d . A t n o tim e w a s th e IJ “ se a rc h [ in g ] f o r w a y s to u n d e rm in e a n d b e littl e p e titio n e r’ s te s tim o n y ,” Q un W ang v. A t t ’

y G en. of

the U
. S. , 423 F. 3d 260, 267 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Zhang v. G onz al es , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 9 (3d C ir . 2005) ) , norw as he “c rude, ” “c ruel , ” “i nt i m i dat i ng, ” “e xtr aor di nar i l yabus i ve, bul l y i ng [or ] extr emel yi ns ens i t i ve, ” i d. ( quot i ng F i adj oe v. A t t ’ y G en . of

the U
. S. , 411 F. 3d 135, 1 4 4 , 1 4 6 , 1 5 4 , 1 5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 )) . 5 a rg u e d to th e B IA , h is f a ilu re to d o s o d e p ri v e s th is c o u rto f ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e m a tte r. See B on ho m etre , 414 F. 3d at448. 2

III . F o rth e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yKo u r a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.