2005 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 10-13-2005 

# S ingh 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 . 03-2814

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " S in gh v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 424. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/424NOT 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 . 03- 2814

________________ P AR M J E E T S I NGH, Pet i t i oner v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA 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 78- 203- 366)

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

A pr i l 6, 2004 Be f o r e : ALI TO, M CK EE AN D C OW EN, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed O ct ober13, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM P a rm je e t S in g h , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f In d ia , e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s in 1 9 9 9 . T h e f o ll o w ing y ea r he so u g h t asy lum . T h e IN S su b seq u en tl yissue d a n o ti ce to ap p ea r, c h a rg in g S in g h w ith b e in g re m o v a b le f ro m th e U n ited S tate s f o r h a v in g e n ter e d in vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) A ) ( i ) . A ft era hea r i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge conc l uded thatSi ngh “has l i ed t o t he courtand has fabr i cat ed a s t orybas ed on ac tual i nj ur i es he s uffe r ed butt hathave nothi ng t o do w i t h hi s al l eged pol i t i cal act i vi t i es . ” The I J found thatSi ngh’ s or al t es t i m onyw as contr adi ct ed notonl ybyhi s ow n w r i t t en t es t i m onybut also b ythe a ff

idav it s o f w itn esse s h e introd u ce d o n h is ow n b eh alf. A cc o rdin g ly , the IJ d e e m e d S in g h in e lig ib le f o r r e lie f a n d o rd e re d h im re m o v e d a s c h a rg e d . T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff i r m ed w i t houtan opi ni on on February28, 2003. O n M ar ch 31, 2003, Si ngh fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen orforr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the B I A deni ed on J une 3, 2003. T he B I A decl i ned t o r eopen the ca s e bec aus e the new ev iden ce cit ed – n ew s arti cles d esc ri b ing v iolen ce in In d ia – d id n o t add ress the IJ’s adv ers e credi bil i t yfi nd i ng . T he B IA decli ned t o recon si der i t s previ ou s deci si on becau se Si ngh had r ai s ed no err or . Si ngh fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew on J une 24, 2003. I A l though w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen, s ee, e. g. , E zea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405, 410 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , the s cope of our r evi ew her e i s l i m i t ed. A m ot i on forr econs i der at i on ort o r eopen ne i t heraff ect s theT h irtyd ay s. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(1 ). 1 3 fi nal i tyof a r emoval or dernorext ends the dea dl i ne forfi l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew of the under l y i ng r emoval or der . St one v. I N S, 514 U . S. 386, 405 ( 1995) ; N ocon v. I N S, 789 F. 2d 1028, 1032- 34 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . B eca us e Si ngh’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew w as fi l ed af t er the t i m e had run t o s eek r evi ew of the B I A ’ s fi nal r emoval or der , w e mayexami ne the 1 p rop ri etyo f th e B IA ’s refu sal t o reo p en S ing h ’s ca se o n lyan d m ayn o t add ress S ing h ’s ar gum ent s t hatt he I J err ed i n deny i ng hi s as y l um appl i cat i on. N ocon, 789 F. 2d at1032- 1 0 3 3 . II U n d e r th e re g u latio n s, th e B IA “ h a s d isc re tio n to d e n ya m o tio n to re o p e n e v e n if th e p a r tymo v i n g h a s ma d e o u ta p r i ma f a c i e c a s e f

o rr e l i e f. ” 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( a ) . As the Supr eme C our thas s t at ed, t he r egul at i ons “pl ai nl ydi s favor ” s uch mot i ons . I N S v. A b u d u , 4 8 5 U .S . 9 4 , 1 1 0 (1 9 8 8 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e re v iew th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on w i t h “br oad def er ence ” t o i t s deci s i on. E zea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 409 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T hus , i n or dert o s ucce ed on the pet i t i on for re v iew , S in g h m u st s h o w th a t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n w a s a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, or c o n tra ryto law . S ee T ipu v . IN S , 2 0 F . 3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I n hi s br i ef, how ever , Si ngh m er el yar gues thathe s houl d have be en gr ant ed a sy lu m . H e d o e s n o t ad d re ss th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to re o p e n , let a lo n e e x p lain w h yth e o rd e r w a s a rb itrar y , irratio n a l o r c o n tra ryto law . A c c o rd in g ly , the iss u e iswa i v e d . Ko s tv . Ko z a k i e wi c z , 1 F . 3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) . E v e n i f i twe r e n o t , we p erc eive n o su ch flaw s in the B IA ’s de cisi o n . A cc o rdin g ly , w e sh all d en yS ing h ’s pet i t i on forr evi ew . T he appe l l ee’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s orfors um m aryact i on i s deni ed.