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 Thir d C ir c uit 1-29-2008 

# Ok e rek e v . Atty Ge n U SA 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 . 06-3612

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 . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

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 sity 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 2008 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 sity 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 . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Oke r e ke v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1690. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1690NOT 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- 3612

_______________ HA RRY OK EREK E, Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

_______________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof t he U ni t ed St at es D epar t m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 70- 651- 555) I m m i gr at i on J udge A l ber t o R i efkohl

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary8, 2008 B e f o re : F U E N T E S a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges a n d D IT T E R * , D is t r i ct Judge. ( Fi l ed: J anuary29, 2008)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________

_______________ * H o n o rab le J. W il li am D it ter, Jr. , U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtJu d g e f o r t h e E astern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . H ar r yO ker eke ( “O ker eke” ) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on of t he B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) re f u sin g to w a iv e th e lim itatio n s p e rio d a p p lica b le to h is m ot i on t o r eopen. B eca us e w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he B I A ’ s di s cr et i onar yr efus al t o g r a n t t h e wa i v e r , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w. B ackgr ound O ker eke i s a ci t i zen of

N i ger i a w ho ent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1989. I n J une 2000, t he G over nm ents er ved hi m w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppearchar gi ng hi m w i t h over s t ay i ng hi s vi s a. I n J une 2001, O ker eke mar r i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, w i t h w hom he now has tw o c h ild re n a n d a s te p d a u g h te r. 

### O nN o v em b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 1 , h e f

ailedto ap p ear at h is i mm i gr at i on he ar i ng and the I mm i gr at i on Judge ( “ I J ” ) or de r e d hi m r e m ove d in a b sen tia . O k e r e k e f

i l e d a n a p p e a l o f

t h e I J 's d e c i s i o n , w h i c h w a s d e n i e d b y t h e B I A a s u n t i m e l y. O ker eke then fi l ed t w o s ubs equentm ot i ons t o r eopen hi s cas e, bot h of w hi ch w er e deni ed byt he I J . I n A ugus t 2003, t he B I A aff i r m ed t he I J ' s deci s i on deny i ng t he s econd mot i on to re o p e n , an d u p h e ld th e o rd e r o f re m o v a l. 

### Oke r e ke , howe ve r , fa i l e d t o de part and wa s arr e s t e d s e ve r a lye ar s l at e r , i n 2006, b y a g e n t s f

r o m U n i t e dS t at e s I mm i g r at i o nan dC u s t o m s E n f o r c e m e n t . O n c e i nc u s t o dy, he file d a m otion w it

h the BIA to reopen h is ca se pu rs uant to prov is ions of the Viole nce Aga i ns t W om e n Ac t

( “ VAWA” ) whi c h have be e n c odi fi e d a s part of the I mm i gr at i on and N at ionali ty

Act ( “INA ”) . 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a(c )( 7)(C)( iv). Ok er eke’ s m otion includedA s e x p lain e d m o re f u llyin th is o p in io n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t O k e re k e ’s p e tit io n f a ils 1 bas ed on t he j ur i s di ct i on s t r i ppi ng pr ovi s i ons of 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) . O ur r evi ew of our ow n jur i sdi ct i on i s de novo . P a tel v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 4 F . 3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 3 

### af f id av its d etailin g num ero u s in stan ces o f p h y sical an dp sych o lo g ical ab u se alleg ed ly pe r pe tr at e d a ga i ns t

hi m by hi s wi fe , a s we l la s e vi de nc e that he i s the pr i m ary

m e ans of supp ort for his minor chil dren. The BIA d enie d the m otion to reopen, no ti ng that it had be e n fi l e d out s i de the one ye ar t i m e l i m i t

a ppl i c abl e t o m ot i ons t o r e ope n that i nvoke the VA WA. The BIA als o refused to waive the one year t im e l imit , s tati ng that Ok er eke had

“ pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e a s t o any e xtr a or di nary

c i r c um s t anc e s or

e xtr e m e har ds hip t o a chil d, to ca

use us t o exerci se favo ra

ble dis cr et ion in this i nstance. ” Okereke t hen f il ed th e p etitio nf

o r rev iewth at is n o wb ef o re u s. 1 

### Di s c uss i on Un der the VA WA, a li ens who ar e s ub ject to a finalorder of rem ov albu t who ar e vi c t i m s of s pous a labus e m ay fi l e am ot i on t o r e ope n the i r i mm i gr at i on pr oc e e di ngs and a ppl y for c anc e l l at i on of r e m ova li f the y c an de m ons tr at e that

the y have be e n “ batt e r e d” or that they have been “the s ub

ject of extr em e c ruel ty

perpetrate d b y

the [thei r] sp o u se[ s] .” 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 4 (a)(iii)(1 )(b b ), 1 2 2 9 b (b )(2 ). O rd in arily , su chm o tio n s m u st be fi l e d wi thi n aye ar

of the i s s uanc e of afi na lor de r of r e m ova l . 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a(C )(7 )(iv ). H o w ev er, th e V A WA p ro v id es th at “th e A tto rn ey G en eral m ay , in t heAt torne

yGe ne ral 's di

s c re t i on , wa i ve thi s t i m e l i m i t at i on i n the c a s e of an a l i e n whoS e c tio n 1 2 2 9 a is p a rt o f th e s u b c h a p te r r e f

e rr e d to in § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 ). S e e CD I 2 I nf or m at i on Svcs . , I

nc. v. R eno , 2 7 8 F .3 d 6 1 6 , 6 1 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (e x p lain in g th a t “th is s ubchapt er ” r efe r s t o “s ubchapt erI I of C hapt er12 of Ti t l e 8, w hi ch cove r s s ect i ons 1151 thro u g h 1 3 7 8 ”). 4 

### dem on strate s e xtra ordinary ci rc um st ance s or e xtre m e har dship to the al ie n's chil d.” 8 U .S.C. § 12 29 a( C)(7)( iv)( II I) ( emph asis ad ded ). Ok er eke fil ed his m otion f ive years afte r he was ordered re m ov ed, andthe BIA d eclin edto g ran t h im

a w aiv er. Inh is p etitio nf o r rev iew , O k erek e co n ten d s th at, in ref u sin g to g ran t h im

a w aiv er, th e B IA e rre d b e c a u se th e sp o u sa l ab u se h e h a s s u f f e re d is an “e xt r aor di nar yci r cumst ance ” and hi s i nabi l i t yt o s uppor t hi s chi l dr en, i f he i s r emoved, c o n s titu te s “ e x tr e m e h a rd s h ip ” to h is c h ild re n . W e l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e BI A’ s d e n i a l o f a wa i v e r o f

t h e o n e - y e a r t i me lim it. 

### W i th the e xc e pt i on of de ni a l s of a s yl um , the INA r e m ove s fr om our jur i s di c t i on “any .. . dec is ion o r a ct ion o f the Attorney General.. . the authority

fo r which is spec ifie d unde r thi s s ubc ha

pt e r t o be i n the di s c r e t i on of the Att orne y Ge ne r a l . ” 8 U. S. C. § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( B) ( i i ) . I n Alak a v . At torne

yGe ne ral , 45 6 F . 3d88 , 96 - 95 ( 3dCi r . 20 06 ) , we 2 

### e xpl a i ne d that

§ 1252' s jur i s di c t i ona lbar a ppl i e s onl y

“ t o anarr ow[] c at e gory

of de c i s i ons wh er e Con gres s has spec if[ied] that the sole authority fo r the ac ti onis the Att orney General ’s disc re ti on .” Id. at 9 6 . As e xam pl e s of s t at

ut ory l angua ge whi c h wi l ltr i gge r the j urisd ictio n al b ar, w e citedv ario u s p ro v isio n s o f th e IN Aw h ichin clu d e exp licit ref eren ces to th e A tto rn ey

G en eral’s d iscretio n . I

d. at 9 8 n .1 6 . We also statedth at w h ileW e or di nar i l ydo not cons i derar gum ent s w hi ch ar e r ai s ed fort he fi r s t t i m e i n a 3 p e titio n e r’ s re p ly b ri e f. I n r e Sur r i ck , 3 3 8 F . 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e r e f o r e , we decl i ne t o cons i derO ker eke’ s ar gum entt hatw e s houl d r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on under 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , w hi ch per m i t s us t o r evi ew “cons t i t ut i onal cl ai m s and i s s ues of la w .” 5 

### “exp licit u se o f

lan g u ag e g ran tin g d iscretio n– su chas ‘th e A tto rn ey G en eral m ay , inh is disc re ti on ’–wo uld p re sum ably trigger the applic at ion o f [ the juris dict ional bar ,]” s uch lan g u ag e is n o t ab so lutely requ iredb ef

o re th e b ar ap p lies. I

d. at 98. W e c onc l ude that

the c i t e d l angua ge fr om

the VAWA, 8 U. S. C. § 1 22 9a ( C) ( 7) ( i v) ( I I I ) , do e s tr i gg e r the jur i s di c t i on a lbar

of § 1 25 2( a ) ( 2) . Li ke the INA pr ovi s i ons we c i t e d i n Alaka , 4 5 6 F .3 dat 9 8 n .1 6 , it exp licitly sp ecif ies th at a d ecisio nto waive the on e- year l imit at ions peri odis m ade at t he Attorney

General ’s “dis cr et ion.” Mo re ov er , i ts lang uage is virt uall y identi ca l t o the lang uage wh ic h, un der Alaka , 456 F. 3d at 98 , i s s uf fici ent t o tri gg er

the bar . Thu s, we la ck ju ri sdic ti onto re view the BIA’s deci si onto deny

Ok er eke a

waiver . Ac c or di ng l y , we wi l lde ny the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w. 3