2010 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 irc uit 6-3-2010 

# I s met C ali k iran 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 . 09-2659

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

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 by 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 ill 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 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill 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 . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " I s me t C al i kir an v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1206. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1206I M G- 2 2 7 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. 09- 2659

___________ I S M E T CA L I KI RA N, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a 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 ( A gencyN o. A 070- 897- 895) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , G R E E N A W A Y A N D ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 3, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM I s m etC al i ki r an pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A pp eal s ( “B IA ”) r end ered on M ay11 , 20 09 . F or the fo l l ow i ng reas on s, w e w i l l dis m i ss i n p a r ta n d d e n yi n p a r tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2 I . B ackgr ound C al i ki r an i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of T urkey . H e arr i ved i n thi s countryi n J ul y1989 a n d o v e r s t a y e d h i s v i s a ; h e h a s b e e n i n r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s s i n c e S e p t e mb e r1 9 9 6 . On M ay14, 1997, C al i ki r an di d notappea rata s chedul ed hea r i ng and the I m m i gr at i on J udge (“ IJ ” ) i s s u e d a n in a b s e n tia re m o v a l o rd e r. M o re th a n six y e a rs la ter , in J u n e 2 0 0 3 , C a lik ira n f iled a f irst m o tio n to re o p e n h is cas e, i n or dert o s eek a dj us tm entof s t atus . T he I J concl uded thatC al i ki r an’ s m ot i on w as u n tim e lya n d h e f

a iled to d e m o n stra te e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s p e rm itt in g a n u n tim e ly m ot i on. Speci fi cal l y , al though C al i ki r an cl ai m ed he mi s s ed the 1997 hea r i ng form edi cal re a so n s, h e p ro v id e d in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

h is m e d ica l co n d iti o n a n d f a iled to e x p lain the nea r l ys i x y ear s of del ayi n fi l i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. T he I J ther efor e deni ed the m ot i on t o r eopen. O n appea l t o the B I A , i n M ay2004, the B I A s um m ar i l yaff i r m ed and adopt ed the I J ’ s deci s i on t o denyr eopeni ng. C al i ki r an di d notfi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w i th thi s C our t , butdi d fi l e a mot i on forr econs i der at i on w i th the B I A . D ue t o err oron the partof the B I A , the mot i on t o r econs i derw as notdocket ed and the B I A di d not add res s i tfor app roxi m at el yfi ve y ears . I n the i nt er i m , i n O ct ober2006, C al i ki r an fi l ed a s econd mot i on t o r eopen, a ss e rtin g th a t th e IJ a n d B IA a p p lied th e w ro n g sta n d a rd in d e n y in g h is f irst m o tio n to re o p e n . T h e B IA d e n ied th e se c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n , co n c lu d in g it w a s n u m e ric a lly barr ed and l acke d m er i t . C al i ki r an fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew . W e di s agr eed w i th theC a lik ira n c laim s h e w a s ill at th e tim e o f h is s c h e d u led h e a rin g a n d w a n ted it 1 r es chedul ed. H e al l eges he mai l ed medi cal r ecor ds t o confi r m hi s i l l nes s , butcont ends th e IJ f a ile d to a d e q u a te ly co n s id e r t h e m p ri o r t o e n te ri n g th e re m o v a l o rd e r. 3 B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e se c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n w a s n u m e ric a llyb a rre d , b u t h e ld it w a s u n tim e ly. W e th e re f o re d e n ie d th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . S e e C a lik ir a n v . A tt’ yG e n ., 2 7 6 F . A p p ’x 2 4 0 (3d C ir . A p r. 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 ). O n M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , the B IA iss u e d a d e c isio n a d d re ss in g C a lik ira n ’s 2 0 0 4 m o tio n to re c o n sid e r. In a d d iti o n , b e c a u se C a lik ira n h a d su b m itt e d a lette r a n d se v e ra l d o c u m e n ts in th e in ter v e n in g tim e , the B IA tre a ted C a lik ira n ’s s u b m iss io n s a s a th ird m o tio n to reopen . T he B IA den i ed b oth m oti on s. T h is tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . II. A n a ly sis A. In h is o p e n in g b rie f

, C a lik ira n c laim s th e IJ is su e d th e in a b se n tia re m o v a l o rd e r in vi ol at i on of C al i ki r an’ s D ue Pr oces s r i ght s . T he or dercurr ent l ybefor e us i n thi s pet i t i on 1 forr evi ew i s the B I A ’ s M ay11, 2009 or derdeny i ng the 2004 mot i on t o r econs i derand th e th ird m o tio n to re o p e n . B e c a u se it i s n o t p ro p e rlyb e f o re u s, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to r evi ew the I J ’ s under l y i ng i n abs ent i a r emoval or der . See N ocon v. I N S, 789 F. 2d 1028, 1032- 33 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . M or eover , C al i ki r an di d notpr es enthi s D ue Pr oces s cl ai m t o the B I A . B eca us e he di d notadmi ni s tr at i vel yexhaus ti t , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the cl ai m forthi s r eas on as w el l . See I N A § 242( d) ( 1) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ] ; A bdul r ahman4

v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 594- 95 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ; s ee a l s o B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F . 3d 44 2, 44 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( a cl ai m that the IJ fai l ed in the d utyt o fu l l ydev el op a case m u st be arg u ed to the B IA ). C a lik ira n a ttem p ts to c irc u m v e n t o u r la c k o f ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e IJ’ s in ab sen ti a re m o v al ord er b yarg u ing that, b ec au se “ [t]he init ial ruli n g in this ca se b ythe IJ i s fl aw ed . . . al l rul i ngs ther eaf t erm us tbe dec l ar ed voi d as a r es ul t . ” ( Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef at9. ) W e r ej ectthi s uns uppor t ed cont ent i on. O urcas e l aw i s cl earthat , i n thi s cas e, the B IA ’s M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 9 d ec isi o n d o es n o t auto m ati ca ll yb ri n g u p fo r rev iew the IJ’s u n d e rly in g re m o v a l o rd e r. A c c o rd in g ly , to th e e x ten t C a lik ira n c h a llen g e s th e IJ’ s in abs ent i a r emoval or der , w e w i l l di s m i s s hi s cl ai m s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. B. T h e B I A ’ s Ma y1 1 , 2 0 0 9 d e c i s i o n d e n i e d r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d r e o p e n i n g . We r evi ew the deni al of m ot i ons t o r econs i derand t o r eopen unde ran abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. B or ges v. G onzal es , 402 F. 3d 398, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e w i l l notdi s turb the B I A ’ s deci s i ons unl es s theyw er e “a rbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” G uo v. A sh cro ft, 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). C a lik ira n m o v e d f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e B IA a n d IJ w ro n g ly d e ter m in e d h is f

irst m o tio n to re o p e n w a s b a rre d . In su p p o rt, C a lik ira n a rg u e d th a t h is m ot i on w as nots ubj ectt o t i m e and numer i cal l i m i t at i ons . H e r el i ed upon I n r e C ruzG ar ci a, 22 I . & N . D ec. 1155 ( B I A 1999) , and I n r e M ance r a- M onr oy , 22 I . & N . D ec. 79A s the B I A not ed i n C ruz- G ar ci a, “[d] eport at i on pr ocee di ngs i nvol vi ng not i ces of 2 hear i ng i s s ued betw een J une 13, 1992, and M ar ch 31, 1997, w er e governed bys ect i on 24 2B of the A ct , ” no tIN A § 2 42 (b) . C ruz- G arci a, 22 I. & N . D ec. at11 60 n. 1. B ecause C al i ki r an’ s cas e i nvol ved a not i ce of hear i ng i s s ued i n M ar ch 1997, the B I A det erm i ned h e is s u b je c t to th e c o n s tr a in ts s e t f o rt h in IN A § 2 4 2 B [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 b ]. T he B I A concl uded thatC al i ki r an di d notr et ai n hi s form ercouns el unt i l aft er 3 expi r at i on of the per i od forr eopeni ng the i n abs ent i a r emoval or der , and form ercouns el t i m el yfi l ed the 2004 mot i on t o r econs i der( al though, as the B I A not ed, the B I A di d not t i m el ydocketoraddr es s i t ) . T he B I A al s o concl uded thatC al i ki r an fa i l ed t o exer ci s e due d ilig e n c e in p u rs u in g h is c la im . 5 (B IA 1 9 9 8 ), in w h ich th e B IA rec o g n ized that fo rm er IN A § 2 4 2 (b) [ 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)] d id n o t p ro v id e e x p re ss tim e a n d n u m e ric a l li m itatio n s o n th e a b ili tyto c h a llen g e a n in ab sen ti a re m o v al ord er. I n d en y ing the m o ti o n to rec o n side r, the B IA rejected C ali k ir an ’s cont ent i on and conc l uded thatC al i ki r an’ s cas e w as nots ubj ectt o form erI N A § 242( b) [8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )]. A c c o rd in g ly , C a lik ira n ’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n f

a iled to 2 demonstr at e thatthe dec i s i on t o denyr eopeni ng s uffe r ed fr om a mat er i al err orof fa ctor law . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (b)(1 ). N e x t, th e B IA c o n stru e d C a lik ira n ’s d o c u m e n tar ysu b m iss io n s a s a th ird m o tio n to r eopen. B eca us e the s ubm i s s i ons i ncl uded i nform at i on abouta di s ci pl i narycompl ai nt C al i ki r an fi l ed aga i ns thi s form ercouns el , the B I A cons i der ed w hetherC al i ki r an w as ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the per i od forpur s ui ng r eopeni ng bas ed upon the def i ci ent perform ance o f cou nsel . T he B IA determ i ned that equi t able t oll i ng did not applybecau se the fa ct s di d nots uppor ta cl ai m of def i ci entper form ance of couns el . I tther efor e deni ed the thi r d m ot i on t o r eopen. 3C al i ki r an has notpr es ent ed a c hal l enge t o anyfac tual fi ndi ngs orl egal concl us i ons

thatthe B I A r eac hed i n i t s deci s i on. T o the ext entC al i ki r an’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew has r ai s ed anychal l enge t o thator deratal l , w e have r evi ew ed the B I A ’ s deci s i on and concl ude thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng C al i ki r an r el i ef. I I I . C oncl us i on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s i n partand denyi n partthe pet i t i on for r e v i e w.

6