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 Thir d C ir c uit 6-9-2010 

# M aze n S aid 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 . 09-3179

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y 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 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M az e n S aid v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1170. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1170NOT 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- 3179

___________ M AZ E N F AT HI S AI D, Pet i t i oner v. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ,

R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 074- 304- 372) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R oxanne H l ady l ow y cz

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

M ay12, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed : J une 9, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M aze n Fathi Sai d pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the or derof 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 eopen. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.2 I. Sai d i s an ethni c Pal es t i ni an M us l i m and a c i t i zen of I s r ael . T he G overnm ent c h a rg e d h im a s re m o v a b le f o r h a v in g b e e n c o n v icte d o f a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y , an d S a id app l i ed fo r s t atutoryw i thh oldi ng of rem ov al and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e ( he mi s s ed the dea dl i ne forappl y i ng foras y l um ) . A m ong hi s cl ai m s w as an as s ert i on thattw o of hi s br other s and one of hi s cous i ns had bee n i m pr i s oned and t or tur ed forant i - I s r ael i act i vi t i es and thatthe I s r ael i governm entw oul d i m put e thei rpol i t i cal o p in io n s to h im . T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e d e n ied S a id ’s a p p lica tio n a n d o rd e re d h is re m o v a l to Is ra e l. T h e B IA d is m is s e d h is a p p e a l, a n d w e d e n ie d h is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . See Sai d v. A t t ’ yG en. , 312 Fed. A ppx. 500 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . I n part i cul ar , w e found no bas i s t o di s turb t he B I A ’ s concl us i on thatSai d had notpr es ent ed anyevi dence thatthe I s r ael i governm entw oul d i m put e hi s r el at i ves ’ opi ni ons t o hi m . See i d. at501- 02. Shor t l yther eaf

t er , Sai d fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen hi s pr ocee di ng on the bas i s of c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s— i.e., th e F e b ru a ry2 0 0 9 e lec tio n o f a “ rig h t w in g ” Isr a e li governm entand i ncr eas ed vi ol ence t ow ar d ethni c Pal es t i ni an M us l i m s . Sai d s uppor t ed hi s m ot i on w i th a per s onal aff i davi t , agai n des cr i bi ng hi s r el at i ves ’ m i s tr eatm ent , and so m e 1 5 0 p a g e s o f

d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e , inc lu d in g th e 2 0 0 8 D e p a rtm e n t o f S tate c o u n tryre p o rt a n d v a rio u s n e w s a rticle s re g a rd in g th e e lec tio n s, in f lam m a to rysta tem e n ts b yan Israeli p o li ti cian , an d ac ts of v iolen ce ag ains t Pa lest inian s g en era ll y . T h e B IA3

d e n i e d th e mo t i o n b yo r d e ri s s u e d J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d S a i d p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r evi ew the deni al of a m o t i o n t o r e o p e n f

o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n , a n d m a y d i s tu rb i to n l y i f i ti s “ ‘ a rb i tr a ry, i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ’ ” Fi l j a v. G onzal es , 447 F. 3d 241, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e per cei ve no abus e of di s cr et i on her e. T h e B IA d e n ied S a id ’s m o tio n to re o p e n a s u n tim e ly . M o tio n s to re o p e n g e n e ra lly mu s tb e f

i l e d wi th i n 9 0 d a y s o f

th e f i n a l a d mi n i s tr a t i v e o r d e ro f r e mo v a l . S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C ) ( i ) ; 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . T her e i s an exc ept i on form ot i ons t o r eopen on the gr ounds of cha nged countr ycondi t i ons thatar e bas ed on evi dence thati s “mat er i al and w as notavai l abl e and w oul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe pr evi ous p roc ee d ing . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7)(C )(i i) ; see a lso 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3)(ii ). Sai d att empt ed t o qual i fyforthi s exce pt i on bypr es ent i ng evi dence of cha nged condi t i ons i n I s r ael . T he B I A , how ever , concl uded thatSai d’ s new evi dence i s not “mat er i al , ” w hi ch w e have r ecogni zed i s an ade quat e gr ound on w hi ch t o denya mot i on t o r eopen. See Fi l

j a, 447 F. 3d at255. A s the B I A expl ai ned, Sai d pr es ent ed no evi dence th a t “r e late s to h im o r h is p e rso n a l circ u m sta n c e s,” a n d p re se n ted n o e v id e n c e lik e lyto change the out come of hi s cas e. T he B I A fur thernot ed thati tpr evi ous l yhad cons i der ed i nfo rm at i on con cerni ng S ai d’s r el at i ves. Sai d chal l enges the B I A ’ s rul i ng on tw o pr i m arygr ounds . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatt he4

B IA ab u sed it s d iscreti o n in co n clud ing that h is ne w ev iden ce is no t m aterial . In part i cul ar , he ar gues thatthe B I A fai l ed t o cons i derhi s cl ai m s i n l i ghtof hi s new evi dence , w hi ch i s m at er i al beca us e i tm akes i tm or e l i kel ythatthe I s r ael i governm ent w ill m istre a t h im a s it h a s h is re lativ e s. W e se e n o b a sis to d istu rb th e B IA ’s r u lin g . S a id d o e s n o t id e n tifya n ye v id e n c e o f re c o rd th a t b e a rs o n th e lik e lih o o d th a t h e p e rso n a lly w i l l be per s ecut ed ort or tur ed i f r eturned t o I s r ael . I n part i cul ar , he poi nt s t o no evi dence of record sug gest i ng that the n ew Is rael i regi m e i s m ore l i kelyt o im pu t e his rel at i ves’ p o lit ica l o p in io n to h im , an d w e h a v e lo c a ted n o n e . M o re o v e r, th e B IA n e c e ss a rily cons i der ed thatpos s i bi l i tybyconcl udi ng thatSai d’ s new evi dence l i kel yw oul d not change the out come of hi s cas e. S e c o n d , S a id a rg u e s th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yf a ili n g sp e c if

ica llyto addr es s the maj or i tyof hi s evi dence . A s the G overnm entar gues , how ever , the B I A need onl y“s how thati thas r evi ew ed the r ecor d and gr as ped the movant ’ s cl ai m s ” and i ncl ude det ai l “‘ s uffi ci entt o enabl e a r evi ew i ng courtt o per cei ve thati thas hear d and thought and notm er el yr eac t ed. ’ ” Fi l j a, 447 F. 3d at256 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n thi s cas e, the B IA ’s ord er is on the c u rsoryside , b u t i t acc u ratelych ara cterizes the n ature o f S aid’s evi dence as a w hol e and s how s thatthe B I A gr as ped and a ddr es s ed hi s cl ai m s . Sai d does nots peci fyw hi ch evi dence he bel i eves the B I A s houl d s peci fi cal l yhave a ddr es s ed or how i ts uppor t s thos e cl ai m s . C f. Z heng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 549 F. 3d 260, 268 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( r emandi ng w her e B I A fai l ed t o cons i dervol um i nous evi dence “‘ thatm at er i al l ybear s onA l though the B I A expr es s l ydeni ed Sai d’ s m ot i on as unt i m el y , i tal s o concl uded that 1 Sai d had fa i l ed t o m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval orr el i ef unde r C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s tT o r tu r e . S a i d c h a l l e n g e s th a tc o n c l u s i o n o n r e v i e w a s w e l l . We n e e d n o t ad d re ss th a t issu e , h o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f th e m o tio n a s u n tim e ly is a n a d e q u a te g ro u n d f o r d e n ia l r e g a rd le s s o f

w h e th e r S a id m a d e o u t a p ri m a f a c ie c a s e . S e e F ilja , 4 4 7 F .3 d a t 2 5 5 . 5 [th e m o v an t’ s] claim ’”) (cit ati o n o m itted). A cc o rdin g ly , w e c an n o t saythat the B IA ab u sed it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing S aid’s mo t i o n a s u n t i me l y , a n d we wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1