2006 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 10-11-2006 

# V az iri v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4547

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 nova 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 2006 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V az ir i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 337. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/337NOT 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- 4547 JE Y A N V A Z IR I,

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 R 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 22 619 485) I m m i gr at i on J udge: E r nes tH . H upp Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember21, 2006 Be f o r e : BA RRY , CH AG AR ES AN D C OW EN, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: O ct ober11, 2006) OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM2

J ey an V azi r i , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I r an, has fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of an or der of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r econs i deri t s pr i or deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen hi s depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs . W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. V azi r i arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1978 atage s i xt een, aboar d w hathe al l eges w as an I r ani an A i rFor ce pl ane “ us ed t o evac uat e ce r t ai n hi gh s t andi ng I r ani ans fl eei ng for t heirl i ves i n the w ake o f t he Isl am i c R evo l uti on i n Ir an. ” H e w as adm i t t ed as a noni m m i gr ants tudent . I n J une 1980, w hi l e i n hi gh s chool , V azi r i w as char ged as bei ng depor t abl e on the gr ound t hathe fa i l ed t o compl yw i t h t he t erm s of hi s admi s s i on by w o rk in g (p a rt tim e , h e c la im s ) a t th e S n a c k S h a c k R e s ta u ra n t in H u n tin g to n , W e s t V ir g in ia . See I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) § 241( a) ( 9) ( 1976) [8 U . S. C . § 1251( a) ( 9) (19 7 6 )], (cu rren t version at IN A § 2 3 7 (a)(1)). A n Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) fo u n d V az ir i depor t abl e as char ged. I n N ovember1980, t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) dis m i ssed V azi ri ’s app eal , and perm i t t ed h i m t o v olunt ari l ydep artw i t hin 15 d ay s. Va z i r i d i d n o td e p a r t . I n s t e a d , i n 1 9 8 1 , h e f i l e d a mo t i o n t o r e o p e n wi t h t h e BI A, s eeki ng t o appl yforas y l um bas ed on hi s and hi s fami l y ’ s s uppor tfort he form erShah of I r an. V azi r i cl ai m ed thathe di d notappl year l i eron t he advi ce of hi s father , w ho fea r ed t h a tt h e i rf

a mi l yme mb e r s i n I r a n wo u l d b e p e r s e c u t e d i f t h e I s l a mi c g o v e r n me n tb e c a me aw ar e thatV azi r i had appl i ed foras y l um . I n Sept ember1982, t he B I A deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen, concl udi ng t hatV azi r i “fa i l [ed] t o es t abl i s h pr i m a fa ci e evi dence of ant i ci pat ed per s ecut i on. ”In this procee ding, w e ca nnot reviewthe B IA’s orig inal final order of removal or its denial of 1 Vaziri’s two prior motions to reopen be causethe petition for review wa s only timely as to the denial of his “Motion for

Reconsideration.” See Stone v. I NS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Nocon v. I NS, 789 F.2d 1028, 1032-34 ( 3d Cir. 1986). 3 O vert w enty - t w o y ear s l at er , V azi r i fi l ed anotherm ot i on t o r eopen t o pur s ue an appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus bas ed on an a ppr oved I - 130 vi s a pet i t i on. T he governm entoppos ed the mot i on, and the B I A deni ed i tas unt i m el yon A pr i l 20, 2005. T he B I A al s o decl i ned t o exer ci s e di s cr et i on t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs s ua s pont e, not i ng t hat V azi r i had “notpr ovi ded anyexpl anat i on as t o hi s fai l ur e t o departt hi s countr y . ” In M a y2 0 0 5 , V a z iri file d a “ M o tio n to R e c o n sid e r” th e d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to r eopen. H e al l eged thatt he “Boar d’ s deci s i on [deny i ng r eopeni ng] i ncorr ect l ys t at e[d] t hat R es pondentfai l ed t o expl ai n hi s r eas on t o departt he U ni t ed St at es aft erbei ng or der ed d ep o rt ed . ” In an o rde r da ted S ep tem b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA d en ied th e m o ti o n to rec o n side r, concl udi ng t hat“r es pondenthas noti dent i fi ed anyerr orof fa ctorl aw i n ourpr evi ous d e c is io n .” V a z ir i h a s f

ile d a tim e ly p ro s e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r IN A § 2 4 2 (a )(2 )(D ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D )] to r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and l egal ques t i ons ” conc erni ng t he B I A ’ s deni al of the

“ M ot i on t o Rec on s i de r . ” W e r e vi e w t he de ni a l fo ra bu s e of di s c r e t i on . Se e N oc on v. I N S,

1 7 8 9 F . 2 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 2 9 -33 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). U n d er this st an d ard , w e w il l ov erturn the B IA ’s deci s i on onl yi f i ti s “arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal orcontr aryt o l aw . ” M cA l l i s t erv. A t t or ney G en era l, 4 4 4 F . 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted).At

mos t, t hea bs e nc eof su c h a n e xplanatio n c ontribute d to theB IA’ s d e c isi on no t to su a

sp onte 2 re op e n th eproc e e din g s. To thee xtent th at V aziri alle g e s th at th eB IA a bu se d it s disc re tio n in denying reconsideration of the denial of sua sponte reopening , we lac k jurisdiction. See Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472 ( 3d Cir. 2003). 4 A m ot i on t o r econs i derm us ts peci fyt he err or s of l aw orfac ti n t he B I A ’ s pr i or deci s i on. 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 1) . H er e, t he B I A found thatV azi r i fai l ed t o i dent i fyany s uch err or s . V azi r i di s agr ees , ar gui ng t hathi s r econs i der at i on m ot i on di d s peci fyan err or of fa cti n t he B I A ’ s deni al of r eopeni ng, namel y , thatt he B I A i m pr oper l yconcl uded thathe h ad n o t exp lai n ed h is fail u re to d ep art after b eing o rde red to d o so . Im p o rt an tl y , h o w ev er, V azi r i ’ s al l eged f

ai l ur e t o pr ovi de an e xpl anat i on w as nott he bas i s of the B I A ’ s deni al of r eopeni ng. R ather , i tdeni ed r eopeni ng beca us e the mot i on w as unt i m el y . See 8

2 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( r e q u i r i n g t h a tm o t i o n s t o r e o p e n g e n e r a l l y b e f i l e d w i t h i n 9 0 d a ys aft ert he dat e on w hi ch the fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i on w as r ender ed) . T her efor e, t o t he extentt hat V azi ri ’s m oti on for r econ si derat i on did not al l ege an yerr or i n the unti m el i ness det erm i nat i on, t he B I A pr oper l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. V azi r i al s o as s er t s t hatt he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by“i gnor [i ng] t he new evi dence s ubm i t t ed bypet i t i oner , w hi ch r epr es ent ed new fac t s notavai l abl e athi s pr i or d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g .” In e ss e n c e , V a z iri b e liev e s th a t th e B IA sh o u ld h a v e tre a ted h is “M ot i on forR econs i der at i on” as a mot i on t o r eopen. W e di s agr ee. U ndert he l anguage of 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 1) , a mot i on forr econs i der at i on i s us ed t o chal l enge de t erm i nat i ons of l aw and fa cti n t he B I A ’ s pr i ordeci s i on. B ycontr as t , a mot i on t o r eopen i s us ed t o pr es ent new evi dence s o t hata new deci s i on can be ent er ed on a di ffe r entfac tual r ecor d. See 85

C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) . I n an appa r enteff or tt o es t abl i s h t hatcountr ycondi t i ons i n I r an have c h a n g e d sin c e h is p re v io u s h e a rin g b e f o re th e IJ, V a z iri su b m itt e d th e 2 0 0 4 S tate D e p a rt m e n t R e p o rt o n H u m a n R ig h ts P ra c tic e s a n d a f f id a v its f ro m h im s e lf

a n d h is f

a th e r. N ow her e, how ever , di d V azi r i at t empt t o expl ai n how thi s evi dence demonst r at es t hat countr ycondi t i ons i n I r an have change d. U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude thatt he B IA ’s fa il u re to a d d ress the all eg ed lyn ew ev iden ce w as n o t arbitrary , irrati o n al or c o n tr ary to la w . F or these reasons, and aft er car eful consi derat i on of the recor d an d the part i es’ c o n t e n t i o n s , we wi l l d e n yVa z i r i ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.