# United States Court of App eals F o r t h e S e v e n t h C ir cu it C h i ca g o , Il l i n o i s 60604 Subm i tte d M ay 21, 20 09 Deci ded A ugust 1 0, 20 09

B efo re JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 1613 AB DU L G HAF F ARMO HAMMAD HUS S AI N , P etitio ner, v. ER I C H
. H OL DE R, J R. , A tto rney Generalo fthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt . Pe ti ti o n fo rRe vi ew o fa n Or dero fthe Board o fI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s. N o. A 76- 773- 859

O R D E R A bdul Hu ssa in, a nati ve ofPaki sta n, co ntends thatthe Board o fI m m i gr ati on A pp eal s i m proper l y deci ded hi s m oti on t o re open r em ova lpro ceedi ngs ini ti ate d against hi m afterthe Dep ar tm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty disc ove re d that he st aye d i n the U ni ted St ate s form or e than a y earafterhi s t em pora ryvi si tor ’ s v i sa expir ed. Beca use the deci si on to rej ect hi s m oti on t o re open was a di scr eti onar y o ne, and H ussain’s chal l enge to i t doe s n otinv olv e a co n st itu tio n al or lega l qu es tio n, w e la c k jur isd ict ion ov er H u ss ain ’s a p p ea l, and ther ef or e di sm i ss i t. 

### N ON P REC ED EN T IAL D I SP OSI T I ON T o b e c it e d o n ly in a c c o r d a n c e w it h Fe d . R. A p p . P . 32.1

### N o . 08-1613 2
I . B AC KGR OUND H ussain, a nati ve and ci ti zen o fPaki sta n, ente re d the Un i ted S tat es i n J une 200 1, at Ch i cago , I l l i noi s, as a noni m m i gr ant v i si torwith a uthor i zati on t o re m ai n i n the U ni ted St ate s unti lDecem ber8, 20 01. On M ar ch 4, 20 03, the Dep ar tm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty ( “DH S”) pl aced H ussain i n re m ova lpro ceedi ngs b y fi l i ng a N oti ce t o A pp ear, wh i ch charg ed hi m with r em ovabi l i ty f oro ver sta yi ng hi s v i sa. H us sa i n a ppea r ed atf o urhe ar i ng s i n fr o nto fa n I m m i g r at i o n Judg e ( “IJ ”) he l d o n: M ar ch2 8, 2 00 3; Augus t 21 , 2 00 3; Oc tobe r2 3, 2 00 3; a nd De ce m be r1 , 2 00 3. Dur i ngthe O c to b er 23 , 200 3 h ea rin g, H u ss ain co n c ed ed rem ov ab ility bu t a sk ed for a nex te n sio nto file an as yl um peti ti on, wh i ch he di d du ring the N ove m ber24, 20 03 hear i ng. At the Decem ber 1, 20 03 hear i ng, H ussain agr eed to withdraw his appli cati on foras yl um in exchange f oran ex te n sio nof h is v olu n ta ry d ep ar tu re p er iod to 12 0 d ay s (n or m ally it is 60 d ay s). T h e IJ or dered the peti ti on withd ra w n and gr anted H ussain’s r equest to depart in 120 days. On Januar y 3 , 20 04, H ussain appeal ed the IJ ’ s deci si on cl ai m i ng tha t he w as effec ti ve l y b ar r ed hi m fr o m makinga n a sy l um c l ai m . He al so fi l ed a m o ti o n t o r eo penthe re m ova lpro ceedi ngs, wh i ch the Board o fI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s ( “BI A ”) deni ed on June 19, 2 0 0 6
. Atthe s a me t i me, h i s a pp e a lwa s a l s o di s mi s s e d. O n J uly 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , Hus s a i n fi l e d a m oti on t o re consi der the BI A ’ s June 19, 20 06 deci si ons. The BI A deni ed thi s m oti on o n A ugust 1 4, 20 06, and thi s co urt denie d the peti ti on forr evi ew o fthatdeci si on o n Octobe r 24 , 200 7. See H ussa in v . Keisler, 505 F.3d 779 ( 7th Cir. 2007). On D ecem ber3, 20 07, H ussain fi l ed a s eco nd m oti on t o re open hi s r em ova l p ro c ee d in gs , citin g c h an ge d co u n tr y c on d itio n s a n d a c h an ge in Se ve n th C irc u it p re c ed en t. H ussain conte nd ed that Paki sta n w as i n the m i dst o fa ci vi lwar and thatPre si dent Per vez M u sh ar ra f h ad im p os ed d ict at or ial ru le a n d h ad su p p re ss ed d em oc ra tic ins tit u tio n s. H ussain ar gued that hi s ca se needed to be r em anded in or der forthe I m m i gr ati on J ud ge to deter m i ne wh etherunder these changed co nd i ti ons he would sufferper secuti on ba sed o n hi s r el i gi on a nd ethnici ty. O nFe b ru ar y 1 4, 20 08 , th e B IA d en ied H u ss ain ’s s ec on d m ot ion to reo p en . T h e B IA c on c lu d ed th atth e m ot ion w as u n tim ely , ex c ee d ed th e m ax im u m n u m b er of allo w ab le m ot ion s t o re op en , an d d id n otfall w ith inan y e x c ep tio nto th os e t im e a n d n u m b er lim its
. The BIA noted tha t the ev i dence subm i tte d by Hu ssa i n w as previ ousl y a vai l abl e a nd that he o ffer ed no r eas on forf ai l i ng to i ncl ud e i t in hi s o ri gi nalpeti ti on. The BI A furthernot ed th atso m e o f th e e vid en c e w as u n re liab le b ec au se it w as u n d at ed
. O nth e m er its of h is peti ti on, the BIA rej ecte d H ussain’s ar gum ent that he w oul d be vi cti m i zed bythe i ncre ase d c ra c kd ow n s b ec au se h e d id n otart icu lat e w h y th os e c h an ge s w ou ld d ire c tly affe c t h im
. Fin ally , th e B IA d et er m in ed th atth er e h ad n otbe en a re lev an t c h an ge in Se ve n th C irc u it

### N o . 08-1613 3

O n th e s am e d ay th at t h i s p e ti ti on f or re v i e w w as f

i l e d , H u s s ai n f

i l e d a s e c on d m ot i on to 1 r e c o n s id e r t h e BIA ’ s J

u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6d e c is io n , w h ich t h e BIA d e n ie d
. H u s s a in ’ s cu r r e n t a p p e a l i s ti m e l y on l y a s to th e BIA ’ s F e br u a r y 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 d e c i s i on , a n d n ot a s to i ts d e n i a lof H u s s a i n ’ s s e c on d m o t i o n fo r r e co n s i d e r a t i o n . Se e IN A § 2 4 2 (b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b ) ( 1 ) ; se e also S t on e v . I. N .S

. , 5 14 U
. S
. 3 86( 19 95 ). prece dent. Hu ssa i n now appeal s fro m the BIA’s deci si on notto r eopen hi s r em ova l proce edi ngs. II. A N A L Y S IS H us sa i n s ee k s r ev i ew o fthe BI A’s F eb r ua r y 1 4, 2 00 8 dec i si o n de ny i nghi s se co nd m oti on t o re open hi s r em ova lpro ceedi ngs. We c a n n o td e c i d e Hu s s a i n ’ s a p p e a lu n l e s s we 1 have j uri sdic ti on t o do so
. W e r evi ew deci si ons re gar ding j uri sdic ti on in i m m i gr ati on ca ses d e n ov o. E squiv el v. M uk a sey, 5 43 F
. 3d 91 9, 9 21 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. Unde rthe I m m i g r at i o n a nd N ati onal i ty A ct, as am ended by the REA L I D A ct o f20 05, we have s ai d that we do nothave j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew any disc re ti onar y deci si on bythe A tto rneyGenera lo r Se cre tar y o f H om el and Secur i ty und ersubchapter2 ofchapter12 o fti tl e 8 , exce pt f orr equests f or asylum un d er section 11 58(a) ofthe im m igrati on cod e. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (B)(i i) ; Kuc ana v. M uk a sey, 533 F.3d 53 4, 53 6 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ), cert. gra nted, 12 9 S
. Ct. 20 75 ( U
. S. A pr. 27, 20 09) (N o. 08-911). W e h eld inKuc ana thatwe do not have j uri sdic ti on o vera m oti on t o re open in a c ase su cha s th i s. In Kucan a , we consi dered wh etherwe had j uri sdic ti on o veran a pp eal perta i ni ng to the BIA’s denia lo fa peti ti oner ’ s m oti on t o re open, wh er e the peti ti onerwas pr e v i o us l y o r de r e d r e mov e d in abs ent ia due t o the f ac t th athe a l l eg edly s l eptthr o ugh a re m ov al h ea rin g. 53 3 F .3d at53 5-3 6. W e rej ec te d K u c an a’s arg u m en t e ve nth ou gh h is m ot ion to reo p en w as p re m ise d on th e a rg u m en t th ath e w as eligib le for as ylu m . H e c ou ld n o tp r e v a i lb e c a u s e h i s mo t i o nt o r e o p e nd i d n o ti t s e l fr e l a t e t o th e “ g r a n t i n go fr e l i e f, ” I NA § 2 08 (a), 8 U .S.C . § 11 58 (a), b u t o n ly foc u se d on th e B IA ’s d ec isio nn otto reo p en h is re m ov al p ro c ee d in gs . Kucan a , 53 3 F
. 3d at 536. Beca use “ [ n]o st atute r equi re s the BI A to r eo penunde ra nyc i r cumst an ce s, ” we fo und tha t th e BI A’s de ci si o n was di sc r et i o na r y a nd ou ts id e o u r j u ris d ict ion u n d er 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 (a)( 2)(B )(ii). Id. Li k e th e pet i ti o ne ri n Kucan a , H u ss ain co n te n d s th atth e B IA sh ou ld reo p en a c as e in whi cha r eque stf o ra sy l um was i nv o l ve d. And a s i n Kucan a , H ussain’s actualr equest to re op en rela te s t o th e B IA ’s d ec isio nn otto reo p en h is c as e, w h ich is d ist in c t fro m h is u n d er lyin g re qu es t fo r as ylu m u n d er § 11 58 (a) o f th e im m igr at ion co d e. See K uc a na, 533 F.3 d at53 6. U n d er ou r p re c ed en t, w e d o n oth av e jur isd ict ion ov er h is p et itio nu n les s it ra ise s c on st itu tio n al c laim s o r qu es tio n s o f law w ith res p ec t t o th e B IA ’s d en ial of h is m ot ion to reo p en . See id
. at 53 8.

### N o . 08-1613 4

M oreov e r , rel i a n c e u p on R i o s -Pin e da is m is g u id e d b e c a u s e t h e r e w e h e ld t h a t n o t w it h s t a n d in g 2 ev i d en c e of

ch a n g ed c i r cu m st a n c es, i t w a s sti l lw i t h i n th e BIA ’ s d i s c r et i on to r ef u se to r eop en a h e a r i n g . 471 U .S . a t 44 9. H u ss ain d oe s n otrais e a n y c on st itu tio n al q u es tio n s in th is a p p ea l, n or d o a n y of h is con ten tions involve q ue stions of l aw . H us sain’s m ain argu m en t is th at Pa kistan ’s coun try condi ti ons have changed m aking i t unsafe forhi m to r epatr i ate ther e. He ass er ts that Paki sta n i s in a s tat e o fwar, thati ts gov er nm ent i s weak a nd o n the ver ge ofco l l apse, that dem ocr acy i s s up press ed, thati ts m i l i tar y a nd intel l i gence se rv i ces uti l i ze tor ture , and that as a m em bero fthe M uhaj i r ethni c m i nor i ty he i s l i kely t o f ace perse cuti on by funda m en ta l i st s an d g o ve r nm en t ag en ts . He r el i es upo n I
. N
. S. v. Ri os - Pine da , 47 1 U.S
. 44 4 ( 19 85 ) , t o c o nt en d tha t th es e f ac ts wer e no t av ai l ab l e atthe t i m e o fhi s o r i g i na lhe ar i nga nd th ath is h ea rin g s h ou ld th er efo re be reo p en ed
. H ow ev er, th e q u es tio nof w h et h er th is e v i d e n c e e x i s t e d a tth e t i me o fth e i n i t i a lh e a r i n gi s o n e o ff a c t, n o to fl a w. 2 H ussain al so sugge sts thatther e has bee n a c hange i n ourci rcui t’ s pre cedent which m er i ts r eo pen i nghi s r emov alpr o ce eding s. R ely i ngupo n Yo uk ha na v. G o nz a les , 46 0 F
. 3d 927 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) , Huss ain a l l eg es tha t th i s co ur t “n o w re qui r es a n e xa m i na ti o n o fe thni c an d r el i g i o us pe r se cut i o n ( an d c o unt r y c o ndi ti o n) pr i o rt o a r ej ec ti o n o fa sy l um c l ai m f o ra ny re aso n. ” Youkhan a di d not chang e o ur ci rcui t’ s l aw r ega rdi ng m oti ons to re open deporta ti on pro ceedi ngs. Instea d, i t m er el y a pp l i ed exi sting l aw to the unique f actual p at te rn s th atex ist ed follow in g th e in va sio nof Iraqin 2 00 3. See id
. at93 4 (re m an d in g in o r dert o de te r m i ne whethe rAss y r i anChr i st i an s wer e per se cut ed afte rthe r emov alo fthe B a’a th P ar ty from p ow er ). W h en a c ou rtap p lies th e la w to n ov el fa c tu al c irc u m st an c es , a n ew ru le of la w is n otan n ou n c ed
. H u ss ain ’s c on te n tio nth atth er e h as be en a c h an ge in thi s co urt’ s pre cedent bo i l s down to m er el y a pp l yi ng se ttl ed l aw to new fa ctual ci r cumst an ce s. Hi s co nt en ti o n do es no t amoun t to a “ que st i o n o fl aw” g i vingus j uri sdic ti on o verthi s a pp eal
. Beca use Hu ssa i n’s peti ti on does notr ai se any c onst i tuti onal c laim s o r qu es tio n s o f law , w e la c k jur isd ict ion ov er it an d d ism iss h is a p p ea l. Tha t sa i d, b ec au se the S upr eme Co ur t r ec en tly g r an te d c er ti o r ar iin Kucan a , we th i nk it p ru d en t fo r u s t o d isp os e o f H u ss ain ’s c laim on oth er gro u n d s. If w e h ad j u ris d ict ion in th i s ca se , we woul d r ev i ew the I m m i g r at i o n Judg e’ s dec i si o n fo rabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. S e l i mi v . A shcroft, 36 0 F
. 3d 736, 73 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. Und eran abuse o fdi scr eti on s tandard, “a m oti on t o re open i s s tr ongly di sf avo re d,” id ., b ec au se th er e is a “s tr on g p u b lic in te re stin br i ng i ngl i ti g at i o n t o a c l o se a s pr o m ptly a s i s co ns i st en t wi ththe int er es t i n g i vingthe ad ve rs ar ies a fair op p or tu n ity to d ev elo p an d p re se n t th eir res p ec tiv e c as es .”. I
. N
. S. v. Abud u , 485 U .S. 94 , 107(19 88 ). I fwe ha d j ur i sdi ct i o n, a ppl y i ngthe abus e o fdi sc r et i o n s ta nda r d, we woul d de ny H ussain’s appeal
. An im m i gr ati on j ud ge m ust deny the m oti on i fthe new ev i dence w as

### N o . 08-1613 5

available and cou ld h ave be en pres en ted at the p riorhearing
. 8 C.F. R
. § 1003.23(b)( 3); S e l i mi, 36 0 F
. 3d at 738. In additi on, an i m m i gr ati on j ud ge has di scr eti on t o deny a m oti on to reo p en ev en if th e m ov in g p ar ty h as es ta b lish ed a p rim a fa c ie c as e fo r re lief. 8 C .F.R . § 10 03 .23 (b )(3)
. T h e B IA co rre c tly n ot ed th atev id en c e o f m os t o f th e c on d itio n s th atH u ss ain ci tes exi ste d at the ti m e o fhi s ini ti alappli cati on –Paki sta n i s in a s tat e o fwar, i ts gov er nm ent i s weak, dem ocr acy i s s up press ed, et c. But H ussain did notar ti cul ate any re as on w h y th e e vid en c e h e p re se n te d w as n otav aila b le a t th e t im e o f th e p rior h ea rin g. H ussain ar gues that the BI A sho uld have acc epted und ate d w ri tte n thr eat s that wer e al l eg edly s en t to hi m i n P ak i st an . He ar g ue s th atthe BI A’s de te r m i na ti o n tha t th e ev i den ce was unr el i ab l e be ca us e th e th r ea ts wer e unda te d was i m pr o per . Ho wev er, the lac k of a n y in for m at ion su gg es tin g w h en th es e w rit te nth re at s w er e m ad e u n d er m in es th eir re liab ility, an d it w as n otan ab u se of d isc re tio nfor th e B IA to rejec t th em . Ezeag wuna v . A shcroft, 325 F.3d 39 6, 40 9-1 0 (3 d C ir. 20 03 ) (h old in g th atan u n d at ed affid av it s u b m itt ed in su p p or t o f an ap p lica tio nfor a sy lu m w as u n re liab le); see also G ram a tik o v v . I. N .S., 128 F. 3d 619, 62 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( hol ding that a peti ti oner ' s “ sel f

- ser vi ng and i nsuffi ci entl y g ro und ed tes ti m ony about curr ent pol i ti calco nd i ti ons” i n hi s ho m e co untry w as i nsuffi ci ent t o w ar ra n t re ve rs al of t h e B IA ’s d ec isio nd en yin g h is a sy lu m ap p lica tio n ). Insu m , H u ss ain did notpre sent any no veladm i ssibl e e vi dence, and ther ef or e the BI A di d not abuse i ts di sc r et i o n b y r efus i ngt o r eo penHuss ain’ s r emov alpr o ce eding s o n the g r o und tha t al lthe ev id en c e h e p re se n te d w as av aila b le t o h im atth e t im e o f h is or igin al h ea rin g. Khan v. Fi lip , 554 F.3d 681, 693 (7th Cir. 2009). Fi nal l y, H ussain conte nd s that i fhe i s for ced to r etur n to Paki sta n, he wil lbe per se cut ed f o re thni c an d r el i g i o us r ea so ns . ButHuss ain do es no t su g g es t any r ea so n why re p at ria tio nw ou ld n eg at ive ly a ffec t h im p er so n ally , esp ec ially sin c e h e liv ed in P ak ist an in th e r ec en t pas t wi th o utb eingt ar g et ed byfunda m en ta l i st s o rg o ve r nm en t ag en ts . S o , the B IA d id n otab u se its d isc re tio nw h en it d en ied h is m ot ion
. Kha n, 55 4 F
. 3d at6 93 ( ho l di ng th atthe BI A di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n in de ny i nga mot i o n t o r eo penb ec au se the p et itio n er failed to p ro d u c e s u fficie n t e vid en c e th ath e “ w as likely to su ffer p olit ica lly m otivated pers ecu tion if return ed to Pakistan ”). I n s um , b as ed o n the r ec o r d b efo r e us , i fwe ha d j ur i sdi ct i o n o ve rHuss ain’ s pet i ti o n, w e w ou ld find thatthe B I A did not ab us e its discretion an d affirm i ts d en ialof H us sain’s m ot ion to reo p en . I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e her eby D IS MISS th i s m at te rf o rl ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n.