I M G - 242 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- 2523

___________ X H E M A L IJ E F R A S H E R I, N A IL F R A S H E R I,

an d S A JM IR F R A S H E R I, P eti ti o n ers 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 an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A g e n c y N o s . A77-633-751, A 77-633-756, A77- 633-755)

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

J une 17, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, V A N A SK I E and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 22, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM L e a d p e tit io n e r X h e m a lij e F ra sh e ri a n d h e r tw o a d u lt so n s, N a il an d S a jm irF o r c o n v e n ien c e , w e w ill re f e r to a ll th re e p e tit io n e rs b yre f e re n c e to M s. F ra sh e ri, 1 the lea d p eti ti o n er. F ra sh e ri’s h u sb a n d , X h e m a l, en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s b e f o re th e re st o f

h is f a m ily 2 and fi l ed a s epar at e as y l um appl i cat i on, w hi ch w as l at erdeni ed. M r . Fr as her i obt ai ned n e w c o u n se l in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 6 , n e a rlyf o u r y e a rs a f

terth e B IA d e n ied h is a p p e a l. In A p ril 2 0 0 7 , the B IA d e n ied h is m o tio n to re o p e n b e c a u se h e f a iled to d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e h is i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . T he Second Ci r cui tC ourtof A ppeal s deni ed hi s pet i t i on for rev iew o f th at ord er. Se e F rash eri v. M u k ase y , 2 7 6 F . A p p ’x 5 3 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 Fr as her i , w ho ar e ci t i zens of A l bani a, pet i t i on forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on

1 Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g th e i rmo t i o n t o r e o p e n . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I F ras heri arr i ved i n the U nit ed S t at es as an app l i cant for adm i ssi on un der the V i sa W ai verPr ogr am, and s oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e. A s gr ounds forr el i ef, Fr as her i al l eged thatherfami l yw as the t ar getof a “ bl ood feud” perpetr at ed byanotherfami l yi n A l bani a. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed r el i ef a nd the B I A aff i rm ed i n D ece m ber2002. I n February2009, Fr as her i fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen, ar gui ng thatherpr i oratt orney pr ovi ded i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance . Speci fi cal l y , Fr as her i cl ai m ed thatthe att orney– w ho al s o r epr es ent ed herhus band i n hi s i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs – fai l ed t o i nform herthat 2 s he coul d pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A deci s i on, nevert ol d herthathe w as l at er d is b a rr e d , a n d m e re ly ad v is e d h e r f a m ily to “ s ta yq u ie t o r e ls e . . . b e d e p o rt e d .” A .R . 2 9 . F ra sh e ri a lso a rg u e d th a t sh e sh o u ld b e e x c e p ted f ro m th e tim e lim itatio n a p p lica b le to3

m ot i ons t o r eopen be caus e of c hanged c i r cumst ance s i n A l bani a. I n s upport , s he pr ovi ded s ever al art i cl es t o the B I A det ai l i ng the ongoi ng pr obl em of bl ood feuds i n that c o u n try. T h e B IA d e n ied th e m o tio n to re o p e n , rea so n in g th a t th e m o tio n w a s n o t ti m e ly fi l ed and thatFr as her i fai l ed t o qual i fyfort ol l i ng underthe s t andar d s etforth i n M att erof C o m p ea n , B an g aly , & J-E -C -, 2 4 I& N D ec . 7 1 0 (A . G . 2 0 0 9 ) (C o m p ea n I). T h e B o ard al s o det erm i ned thatFr as her i fai l ed t o demonstr at e cha nged countrycondi t i ons t o j us t i fy re o p e n in g h e r c a s e . F ra s h e ri th e n f ile d a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie 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 B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f

orabus e of di s cr et i on. See Fadi ga v. A tt ’ yG en. , 488 F. 3d 142, 153 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). U n d e r th a t sta n d a rd , w e w ill n o t re v e rse th e B o a rd ’s d e c isio n u n les s “ it i s arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” I d. ( quot i ng Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 1 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 )). A n al i en s eeki ng t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs m us tfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen w i thi n 90 d ay s o f th e e n tryo f a fin al ord er o f re m o v al. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7)(C )(i ). H o w ev er, i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el can s erve as a bas i s forequi t abl yt ol l i ng the l i m i t at i ons p eriod in im m igrati o n ca ses. S ee M ah m o o d v . G o n za les, 4 2 7 F . 3 d 2 4 8 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 20 05 ). T he B IA den i ed the m oti on t o reope n, i n p art , becau se Frasheri fai l ed to exerci se d u e d i l i g e n c e i n p u r s u i n g h e ri n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m, a s r e q u i r e d b yCo mp e a n I . At4

the out s et , w e not e thatthe A tt orneyG ener al has s i nce va cat ed C om pean I . See M att erof C om pean, B angal y , & J - E - C - , 25 I & N D ec. 1 ( A . G . 2009) ( C om pean I I ) . T hi s has no eff ecton ouranal y s i s , how ever , as due di l i gence has l ong been, and s t i l l i s , r equi r ed for e q u ita b le to llin g . S e e M a h m o o d , 4 2 7 F .3 d a t 2 5 2 . I n concl udi ng thatFr as her i fai l ed t o demonstr at e due di l i gence , the B I A not ed that F rash eri ret aine d n ew co u n sel fo r he r hu sb an d in 2 0 0 6 – fo u r y ea rs af ter th eir case s w ere deci ded – butfai l ed t o t ake a ct i on i n s upportof herow n cas e atthatt i m e, des pi t e havi ng som e kn ow l edg e bythen that herfi rs tat t orneyhad perform ed d efi ci entl y . T he B IA al so found unper s uas i ve Fr as her i ’ s expl anat i on thats he di d notact i vel ypur s ue herdefi ci ent per form ance cl ai m betw een 2006 a nd 2009 becaus e s he w as w ai t i ng forthe out come of h e r h u sb a n d ’s 2 0 0 6 m o tio n to re o p e n a n d b e c a u se h e r h u sb a n d e x p e rie n c e d h e a lth pr obl ems. Fr as her i ar gues thatbys ecur i ng a new l aw y erforherhus band and a w ai t i ng the out come of hi s m ot i on, w hi ch, i f gr ant ed, w oul d s upportherow n m ot i on t o r eopen, s he exe r ci s ed due di l i gence . N everthel es s , Fr as her i ’ s ar gum entdoes notdemonstr at e that th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n : itw a s n o t arb itrar y , irratio n a l, orc o n tra ryto law to concl ude thatFr as her i , w ho w ai t ed thr ee y ear s aft erdi s cover i ng heratt orney ’ s defi ci ent p e r f o rma n c e t o f

i l e a mo t i o n t o r e o p e n , d i d n o ta c td i l i g e n t l ywi th r e g a r d t o h e ro wn i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . See C hedi d v. H ol der , 573 F. 3d 33, 37 ( 1s tC i r . 2009) ( hol di ng thatal i en fa i l ed t o demonstr at e due di l i gence w her e he w ai t ed nea r l ya y earaft er d isco v ering h is attorn ey ’s de ficien t perf o rm an ce b ef

o re f il ing a m o ti o n to reo p en ).5

T h e B IA a lso h e ld th a t F ra sh e ri f a iled to c o m p o rt w ith th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts of C om pean I foras s ert i ng a def i ci entper form ance cl ai m . B ecaus e w e conc l ude that F ra sh e ri f

a iled to d e m o n stra te th e re q u isite d u e d ili g e n c e , w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss th e m e rits of the B oar d’ s C om pean a nal y s i s orFr as her i ’ s ar gum entthatthe B oar d’ s appl i cat i on of C om pean viol at ed h er due p rocess ri gh t s. I n hercouns el ed br i ef, Fr as her i vaguel yal l udes t o the B oar d’ s concl us i on thats he di d notdemonstr at e cha nged countrycondi t i ons , s o as t o excus e the unt i m el yfi l i ng of her m ot i on t o r eopen. T hough nota model of cl ar i ty , herbr i ef s ugges t s thatthe B oar d ei ther i m pr oper l yori ns uffi ci ent l ycons i der ed the evi dence s he pr es ent ed of ongoi ng bl ood feuds i n A l bani a. W e di s agr ee. A l though a mot i on t o r eopen mays ucce ed on a c l ai m of change d countrycondi t i ons , m er e cumul at i ve evi dence demonstr at i ng thatcondi t i ons as s ert ed i n the or i gi nal appl i cat i on per s i s ti s i ns uffi ci ent . See Zhao v. G onzal es , 440 F. 3d 405, 407 ( 7th C i r . 2005) . H er e, the B I A cons i der ed the evi dence and r eas oned thatthe a rticle s F ra sh e ri su b m itt e d sim p lyd e m o n stra ted th e p e rsis ten c e o f b lo o d f e u d s – th e b a sis f o r h e r o ri g in a l c la im f

o r r e lie f. Fi nal l y , w e not e thatFr as her i devot es a s ubs t ant i al port i on of herbr i ef t o ar gui ng that the A gencyi m pr oper l ydeni ed herappl i cat i ons foras y l um and r el at ed r el i ef. A pet i t i on for r evi ew “mustbe fi l ed notl at erthan 30 day s aft erthe dat e of the fi nal or derof r emoval . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) . T hi s t i m e l i m i ti s m andat oryand j ur i s di ct i onal . See St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386, 405 ( 1995) . H er e, the B oar d i s s ued a f i nal r emoval or deri n D ece m ber2002, and6

F ra sh e ri f

a iled to f ile a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew o f

th a t o rd e r. T h u s, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to eval uat e the B oar d’ s deci s i on i n thatr egar d. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.