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 1-30-2008 

# M ow l a 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 . 06-4165

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_2008

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 2008 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 ow l a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1669. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1669NOT 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- 4165 NAE E M GOL AM M OWLA ; KI S WARA P AR VE E N M OWLA ; T AHAS HANJ I M M OWLA , 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
Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart 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 os . A 72- 784- 760, A 73- 675- 573

and A 73- 664- 914) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary29, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, and R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udges

and TH O M PSO N , *D i s tr i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: J anuary30, 2008)

*H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. N aee m gol am M ow l a, w i th hi s w i fe, K i s w ar a, and s on, T ahas hanj i m , as der i vat i ve r i der s , 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 pet i t i oner ’ s thi r d m ot i on t o r eopen. M ow l a ar gues thatthe B I A i gnor ed hi s due pr oces s cl ai m r egar di ng couns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s and abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng p e titio n e r’ s m o tio n to re o p e n . 

### F o r th e reaso n s b elo w , w e w ill d eny M o w la’s pet i t i on for
r e v i e w. Pet i t i oner s , nat i ves and ci t i zens of B angl ades h, w er e admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es o n N o v em b er 2 3 , 1 9 9 3 , w ith au tho ri za ti o n to rem ain u n ti l M ay2 2 , 1 9 9 4 . O n F eb rua ry 28, 1994, pet i t i onerN aee m gol am M ow l a appl i ed foras y l um w i th hi s w i fe a nd s on as der i vat i ve r i der s on hi s appl i cat i on. H i s appl i cat i on w as deni ed, and, aft era hea r i ng on th e m e ri ts , th e IJ d e n ie d p e titio n e rs ’ r e q u e s ts f o r a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, a d e c is io n th a t th e B IA a n d th is C o u rt s u b s e q u e n tly a f f ir m e d . O n J ul y23, 2004, pet i t i oner s fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen, ar gui ng thatpol i t i cal situ ati o n h ad b ec o m e w o rse a n d lead p eti ti o n er’s b roth er h ad b ee n att ac k ed . T h e B IA deni ed the mot i on. Pet i t i oner s appea l ed t o thi s C our t , butappel l at e couns el defa ul t ed on th e f ili n g o f th e b rie f a n d a p p e n d ix a n d th e a p p e a l w a s d ism iss e d . A se c o n d m o tio n to
reo p en w as f

il ed in w h ich p eti ti o n ers a rgu ed that co u n sel h ad b ee n inef fe cti v e. T h e B IA3

d en ied th e m o ti o n fo r ex ce ed ing n u m erical l im it ati o n s, fa il ing to sh o w ch an g ed co u n try condi t i ons , and fa i l i ng t o m eetthe Mat t erof Lozada , 1 9 I. & N . D ec . 6 3 7 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ), crit eria n ec essa ryto sh o w inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. P eti ti o n ers f il ed a third
m ot i on t o r eopen on M ay22, 2006 on the bas i s thatcountrycondi t i ons had cha nged af t er r ece ntel ect i ons , l ead pe t i t i oner ’ s br otherhad gone i nt o hi di ng aft eratt acks , and pr i or c o u n se l h a d b e e n in e f

f e c tiv e . T h e m o tio n w a s a c c o m p a n ied b ya d e c lar a tio n o f c o u n se l, an af fi davi tfr om M ow l a, the B I A ’ s N ovember2, 2004 deci s i on, tw o w eb art i cl es , and pet i t i oner s ’ compl ai ntagai ns tthei rpr i oratt orney . A pp. at6- 26. O n A ugus t22, 2006, t he B I A deni ed thatm ot i on forexce edi ng num er i cal l i m i t at i ons , fai l i ng t o es t abl i s h that
r ece ntB angl ades hi el ect i ons w er e mat er i al t o pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m s , and nots how i ng that the al l eged i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el pr ej udi ced thei rcas e bef or e the I J orB I A , as r e q u i r e d b y Lozada . A m o tio n to re o p e n is typ ic a lly b a rr e d a f te r n in e ty d a y s . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 2 ). T hi s l i m i tdoes notappl yhow everi f the mot i on s eeks r el i ef “ bas ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n t he countr y[of r emoval ] , i f s uch evi dence i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe pr evi ous hear i ng. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) . I n addi t i on t o s ubm i t t i ng pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e evi dence and
s how i ng w or s ened c ount r ycondi t i ons , the mot i on t o r eopen “ m us tes t abl i s h p rim a fa c ie el i gi bi l i tyfor[the r eques t ed r el i ef] . ” G u o v . A sh c ro ft , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e w i l l n o td i s tu rb th e B I A ’ s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o r e o p e n u n l e s s i ti s “ ‘ a rb i tr a ry,4

i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ’ ” B or ges v. G onz al es , 402 F. 3d 398, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he B I A di d notactarbi tr ar i l yi n rul i ng thatpet i t i oner s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h change d countrycondi t i ons . M ow l a fa i l ed t o pr es entobj ect i ve evi dence demonstr at i ng thatthe
cou ntrycon dit i on s had w orsened si nce h i s ori ginal heari ng or that the ch ang ed co nd i t i on s, i n thi s cas e B angl ades hi el ect i ons , w oul d aff ecthi m . T he art i cl es pet i t i oner s s ubm i t t ed di d nots how change d ci r cumst ance s ; r ather , one s ugges t ed i m pr oved countrycondi t i ons a n d th e o th e r c o n f

irm e d a p o lit ica l situ a tio n th a t re m a in s tu rb u len t. M o w la’ s a f f id a v it
s i m i l ar l ypr ovi ded l i t t l e new i nform at i on. I n the af fi davi t , he di d cl ai m thathi s br other had bee n att acke d beca us e hi s br otherw as pol i t i cal l yact i ve; thi s , how ever , contr adi ct ed pr evi ous t es t i m ony . I tw as notan abus e of di s cr et i on forthe B I A t o cons i derthe evidence insuffi ci ent t o sho w m at eri al l ychan ged cou ntrycon dit i on s. A dd i t i on al l y , peti t i on ers con t end that the B IA “i m properl yi gn ored t he d ue p rocess v io la tio n a ri s in g f

ro m [ p ri o r c o u n s e l’ s ] i n e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e .” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 6 . T hei rcl ai m of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance s t ems fr om pr i orcouns el ’ s fai l ur es i n fi l i ng an app eal of the B IA ’s den i al of thei r i nit i al m oti on t o reope n to this C ou rt . P et i t i on ers , h o w e v e r, h a v e n o c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l in c iv il p ro c e e d in g s a t th e a p p e lla te le v e l. See W ai nw r ightv. Torna , 455 U . S. 586, 587- 88 (1 9 8 2 ); Magala v. G onz al es , 4 3 4 F .3 d 5 2 3 , 5 2 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). E v e n if p e tit io n e rs d id have a due pr oces s cl ai m , the B I A cons i der ed and r ej ect ed thei rar gum ent s i n both the5

sec o n d an d thir d m o ti o n s to reo p en . O n b o th o cc asio n s, the B IA fo u n d that p eti ti o n ers had fa i l ed t o s how anypr ej udi ce t o the pr ocee di ngs befor e the I J orB I A , as r equi r ed by Lozada . T h e B IA ’s de n ial o f th e p eti ti o n ers’ m o ti o n to reo p en is sup p o rt ed b ythe re co rd
a n d c a n n o tb e c o n s tru e d a s a rb i tr a r y , i rr a t i o n a l , o rc o n tr a ryt o l a w. 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.