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 Third C irc uit 5-21-2008 

# S a dik u v . Atty Gen U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2548

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S a dik u v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1167. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008/1167NOT 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. 07- 2548

___________ HAXHI P E L L UM B S ADI KU, P eti ti o n er, v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on ForR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 73- 616- 135 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H e n ryS . D o g in

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

M ay7, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay21, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerH axhi P. Sadi ku, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of A l bani a, ent er ed the U ni t ed S tate s o n A p ril 1 4 , 1 9 9 7 o n a n o n im m ig ra n t B -1 v isa , w ith a u th o riz a tio n to re m a in u n til M ay13, 1997. O n N ovember10, 1999, he w as s erved w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppear , al l egi ng th a t h e w a s re m o v a b le u n d e r I m m ig ra tio n & N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ) § 2 3 7 (a )( 1 )( B ), 82

U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) , as an over s t ay . A ta mast ercal enderhear i ng, he admi t t ed the f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s th ro u g h c o u n s e l, J o s e C a m ilo , E s q u ir e , a n d c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ility. O n A u g u s t 2 6 , 1 9 9 7 , S a d ik u f ile d h is a p p lic a tio n f

o r a s y lu m u n d e r I N A § 2 0 8 (a ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a ), a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l u n d e r I N A § 2 4 1 (b )( 3 ), 8 U .S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3) , and the C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e, 8 C . F. R . §§ 1208. 16( c) , 1208. 18, c laim in g a f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f p o lit ica l o p in io n . A t a h e a rin g o n th e m e rits on J ul y10, 2000, the I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed hi s appl i cat i ons , concl udi ng thathe l acke d cr edi bi l i tyand thatcondi t i ons had cha nged i n A l bani a. H i s appl i cat i on for v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re w a s d e n ied . O n F e b ru a ry5 , 2 0 0 3 , the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls a f f irm e d , sp e c if

ica llya g re e in g w ith th e IJ’ s f in d in g s c o n c e rn in g c re d ib ili ty . S a d ik u d id notpet i t i on forr evi ew of thi s deci s i on. O n M ar ch 9, 2007, Sadi ku, thr ough new couns el , T i m othyG . G r i ffi n, E s qui r e, fil ed an u n ti m ely , see 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2) (p rov iding fo r 90 d ayfil ing d ea d li n e), m o tio n to re o p e n . H e a lleg e d th a t p rio r c o u n se l in a d e q u a telysu p p o rte d a n d p re se n ted h is cl ai m thathe and hi s fami l ys uffe r ed per s ecut i on underthe ol d C om m uni s tr egi m e and a t the hands of the new Soci al i s tand D emocr at i c Part i es . Pr i orcouns el di d not , for exampl e, s ubm i tevi dence thathe bor e phy s i cals car s fr om t ortur e. Sadi ku ar gued thatthe fi l i ng deadl i ne s houl d be equi t abl yt ol l ed i n hi s cas e bec aus e pr i orcouns el had r ender ed in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e in h a n d lin g h is a sy lu m c laim , sp e c if ica lly , in f

a ili n g to p re p a re h im a d e q u a telyto tes tify . H e n o ted , h o w e v e r, th a t h e h a d n o t f iled a c o m p lain t w ith3

di s ci pl i naryauthor i t i es becaus e “no vi ol at i on of appl i cabl e di s ci pl i naryrul es i s al l eged h e re .” A .R . 7 1 . S e v e ra l n e w ite m s w e re s u b m itte d in s u p p o rto f th e m o tio n to re o p e n . S a d ik u ’s s iste r su b m itt e d a sta tem e n t, da ted M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , in w h ich sh e n o ted th a t h is w if e w a s s o d is tr a u g h t o v e r t h e M a y1 9 9 6 s ta b b in g th a t s h e s u f f e re d a m is c a rr ia g e . Sadi ku’ s fathers ubm i tt ed a s t at ement , dat ed M ar ch 16, 2007, att es t i ng t o the c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th e sta b b in g a n d th e m isc a rria g e , A .R . 3 1 . O th e r f a m ily m e m b e rs s u b m itt e d re c e n tlye x e c u ted sta tem e n ts a s w e ll. In a d d iti o n , a n u rse , L iri S e lim B i ci , s ubm i tt ed a s t at ement , dat ed M ar ch 14, 2007, thats he w as pr es entw hen thr ee men br oughtSadi ku t o the hos pi t al , w ounded and bl eedi ng fr om s t ab w ounds , and thathe r emai ned i n the hos pi t al fortw o w eeks . A . R . 34. O n M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls d e n ied th e m o tio n to reo p en . T h e B o ard co n clud ed that S ad iku ’s all eg ati o n s o f in ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce w ere vag ue an d theydid not excuse the 4 y ear del ayi n fil i ng . C i t i ng M ahm oo d v . G on zal es, 427 F. 3d 248, 252- 53 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , the B oar d hel d thatSadi ku had fa i l ed t o s how di l i gence i n m aki ng hi s cl ai m s agai ns tpr i orcouns el i n a mot i on t o r eopen. I n addi t i on, he had f ai l ed t o compl yw i th the r equi r ement s of M att erof Lozada, 19 I . & N . D ec. 637 (B IA 19 88 ), for m aking a clai m of ineffecti ve assi st ance. See als o Z hen g v . G on zal es, 42 2 F . 3d 98 , 10 6 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). T he B oard al so decli ned t o ex erci se i t s s ua sp o n te au tho ri tyto reo p en p roc ee d ing s. S ad iku ti m elyp eti ti o n ed fo r rev iew o f th is B o ard deci s i on i n the C ourtof A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , and the mat t erw as tr ans ferr edI n a s t at ement , A . R . 585- 88, and br i ef, A . R . 606- 610, i n s upportof thi s appl i cat i on, 1 S a d ik u e x p lain e d th a t h e w a s b o rn in K o rc a , A lb a n ia o n A p ril 3 , 1 9 6 5 . In 1 9 6 7 , h is m o th e r’s u n c le w a s a rre ste d b yth e C o m m u n ist g o v e rn m e n t o f A lb a n ia f

o r sp e a k in g o u t in favorof I s l am. H e w as hanged i n the ce nt erof the ci tyand hi s bodyw as l efthangi ng for tw o d a y s . T h e f

a m ily w a s th e n f

o rc e d to liv e in a c lo s e d c o m p o u n d f o r t h re e y e a rs . C o n d iti o n s w e re v e ryh a rsh . T h e re w e re n o lig h ts a n d n o ru n n in g w a ter . T h e re w a s littl e f o o d , an d b e a tin g s w e re c o m m o n . In 1 9 6 9 , w h e n h is f a m ilyw a s f

re e d , the yse ttl e d in Shi ngj er gi buttheycont i nued t o be per s ecut ed as “ene m i es of the s t at e. ” Sadi ku s uppor t ed the D emocr at i c Partyof A l bani a w hen i tfi r s tcame t o pow er . O n February21, 1991, he and hi s br otherw er e on thei rw ayt o an ant i - C om m uni s tdemonstr at i on w hen theyw er e arr es t ed and de t ai ned forthr ee da y s , dur i ng w hi ch t i m e theyw er e i nt err ogat ed a n d b e a ten b yth e p o lice . In N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 1 , h e m o v e d to T ira n a a n d o p e n e d a sm a ll s t or e. H e bec ame a m emberof the D emocr at i c Partyand w as i nvol ved i n m anym eet i ngs in a n d a ro u n d K o rc a . In th e su m m e r o f 1 9 9 3 , the S o c ialists w e re p ro tes tin g b e c a u se th e ir l eade r , Fat os N ano, had bee n j ai l ed bythe D emocr at i c governm entof A l bani a. T he pr ot es tt ook pl ace i n fr ontof hi s s t or e. T he pol i ce be atthe Soci al i s tpr ot es t er s w i th cl ubs 4 her e forl ack of

venue. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W e a re n o t auth o ri ze d to rev iew the B o ard ’s F eb rua ry 5, 2003 deci s i on, becaus e the pet i t i on forr evi ew i s t i m el y , s ee 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) ( pr ovi di ng forthi r typer i od forfi l i ng pet i t i on forr evi ew ) , onl yas t o the M ar ch 28, 2007 deci s i on. See St one v. I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Serv. , 514 U . S. 386, 405- 06 ( 1995) ( ( hol di ng that , i n cont extof m ot i on forr econs i der at i on ort o r eopen, C ongr es s envi s i oned tw o se p a ra te tim e lyp e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

tw o se p a ra te f

in a l o rd e rs) . H e re , S a d ik u d id nots eek r evi ew i n thi s C ourtof the B oar d’ s February5, 2003 deci s i on, and w e thus have n o juri sd ict ion to ad d ress the arg u m en ts he raises in h is brief c o n ce rnin g w h ethe r th e IJ’s and B oar d’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , s ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ); C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 1and Sadi ku tr i ed t o i nt ervene. T hi s anger ed tw o s ecur i tyoffi ci al s w ho then ques t i oned

hi s l oy al tyt o the D emocr at i c Party , t ook hi m t o a pol i ce s t at i on, and bea thi m on hi s back, head a nd l egs . O n M ay26, 1996, ther e w er e el ect i ons i n A l bani a, and rum or s thatthe D emocr at i c Partyw as try i ng t o m ani pul at e the r es ul t s . Sadi ku w entt o the pol l i ng pl ace , and r emai ned atthe ce nt eral l day . H e w i tnes s ed pol i ce c ar s w i th ci vi l i ans i ns i de, bei ng tra n sp o rte d f

o r th e p u rp o se o f

c a stin g v o tes in f

a v o r o f D e m o c ra tic P a rtylea d e r S a li Be r i s h a . S a d i k u wa s a s k e d t o v o t e mo r e th a n o n c e a n d h e r e f u s e d . Af t e rr e tu rn i n g h o me f o rd i n n e r , o n h i s wa yb a c k t o th e p o l l i n g p l a c e , h e wa s a c c o s t e d b yth r e e me n . Hi s a rms w ere hel d b ytw o o f them , and a thir d st abb ed h i m tw i ce, i n the l eftpartof h i s t orso j ust b e lo w th e rib c a g e , an d a g a in o n h is le f t sh o u ld e r. S o m e o n e to o k h im to th e h o sp ital in T ira n a . H e b e liev e d th a t th is a ttac k w a s a d ire c t re su lt o f h is h a v in g re f

u se d to p a rticip a te in m an ipu lat ing the e lecti o n fo r th e D em o cra ti c P arty . P h o tog rap h s o f S ad iku ’s ba re t or s o s how i ng s car s appea ri n the A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ecor d, A . R . 538. O n J une 20, 1996, h is s to re w a s b u rn e d d o w n , h e th in k s b yth e sa m e p e o p le w h o sta b b e d h im . H e a n d h is w i fe l eftT i r ana on Sept ember9, 1996. H i s uncl e w as ki l l ed i n A pr i l 1997 dur i ng the vi ol ence thatoccurr ed w hen the pyr ami d i nves tm ents chemes des tr oy ed the A l bani an e c o n o m y . A f

terh is f a th e r a n d b ro th e r c o m p lain e d a b o u t th e lac k o f re a l d e m o c ra c yin A l bani a, thei rhous e w as burned dow n. T he I J had s ever al pr obl ems w i th i ncons i s t enci es i n Sadi ku’ s appl i cat i on r egar di ng event s centr al t o hi s cl ai m , and he e xpect ed t o s ee h o sp it al reco rds re lat ing to the stab b ing . H e a lso n o ted in co n sist en cies in S ad iku ’s assert i on s abou tho w and w hen he en t ered the U nit ed S t at es. 5 W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re o p e n u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . I mmi g r a t i o n & N a tu r a l i z a t i o n S e rv . v . Do h e r ty , 5 0 2 U. S . 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Th e S u p r e me C o u rth as stated that “[ m ]oti o n s fo r reo p en ing o f im m igrati o n p roc ee d ing s are di s favor ed, ” not i ng that“as a gene r al m att er , everydel ayw orks t o the adva nt age of the deport abl e al i en w ho w i s hes m er el yt o r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es . ” I d. W e w i l l not d istu rb th e B o a rd ’s d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n u n les s it w a s a rb itrar y , irratio n a l o r c o n tra ryto law . S e e , e.g ., S e v o ian v . A sh c ro f t, 29 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). “A n a lien m a yf ile o n e m o tio n to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s,” a n d su c h a m o tio n “ sh a ll state th e n e w f a c ts th a t w ill be pr oven ata hea r i ng t o be hel d i f the mot i on i s gr ant ed, and s hal l be s upport ed byT h e re a re e x c e p tio n s to th e n in e ty d a yd e a d lin e w h ic h a re n o t a p p lic a b le h e re . 8 2 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3). 6 a f f i d a v i t s o ro th e re v i d e n t i a ry m a t e r i a l . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( A ) , ( B ) . O r d i n a r i l y, “[t ] he mot i on t o r eopen s hal l be fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of the dat e of e ntryof a f i nal a d m in is tr a tiv e o rd e r o f

re m o v a l.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )( 7 )( C )( i) ; 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 2 ). See al s o L untungan v. U . S. A tt orneyG ener al , 449 F. 3d 551, 555 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( per c u ri a m ). S a d ik u ’s m o tio n to re o p e n w a s a lm o st f o u rs yea r la te. B e c a u se th e m o tio n to re o p e n w a s u n tim e ly , an d n o n e o f th e e x c e p tio n s a p p ly , th e B o a rd d id n o t ab u se its 2 d iscreti o n in d en y ing it . D o h erty , 5 0 2 U . S . at 32 3 ; Se v o ian, 29 0 F . 3 d at 17 4 . In M ahmood, 427 F. 3d at250- 51, w e hel d thatatt orneyconductcan pr ovi de a ba s i s for e q u itab le to lli n g o f

th e n in e ty -d a yd e a d lin e , b u t f a ilu re to e x e rc ise d u e d ili g e n c e in as s ert i ng i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el underm i nes anycl ai m forequi t abl e t ol l i ng of the mot i on t o r eopen de adl i ne, i d. at252- 53. See al s o B or ges v. G onzal es , 402 F. 3d 398, 4 0 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). H e re , S a d ik u w a ited a lm o st f o u r y e a rs a f

terth e B o a rd ’s d e c isio n to f ile h is m o tio n to re o p e n , an d h e o f f e re d n o re a so n f

o r th is le n g th yd e lay. H is b a ld as s ert i on thatpr i orcouns el di d nott el l hi m thathi s as y l um appl i cat i on had bee n deni ed d o e s n o t a c c o u n t f

o r t h e f o u r ye a r d e la y . I n addi t i on, i n L u v. A s hcr oft , 259 F. 3d 127, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w e hel d thatthe B oar d’ s pr ocedur al r equi r ement s foras s ert i ng a cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar e a r eas onabl e exe r ci s e of the B oar d’ s di s cr et i on. A m ot i on bas ed on a c l ai m of7

i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el s houl d be s upport ed byan af fi davi tatt es t i ng t o the r el evantfac t s thats et s forth i n det ai l the agr eementthatw as ent er ed i nt o w i th pr i or couns el w i th r es pectt o the ac t i ons t o be t aken. Fur therm or e, pr i orcouns el m us tbe in f o rm e d o f th e a lleg a tio n s a n d a llo w e d th e o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d . F in a lly , if it is as s ert ed thatpr i orcouns el ' s handl i ng of the ca s e i nvol ved a vi ol at i on of ethi cal orl egal re sp o n sib ili ties , the m o tio n sh o u ld re f lec t w h e th e r a c o m p lain t h a s b e e n f iled w ith a p p ro p ri a te d is c ip lin a ry a u th o ri tie s , a n d if n o t, w h yn o t. L o z a d a , 1 9 I.& N . D e c . a t 6 3 8 . W e a g ree that S ad iku fa il ed to co m p lyw ith the L o za d a re q u ir em en ts. T h u s, the B o ard ’s deni al of the mot i on as unt i m el yw as notarbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw , and the B oar d pr oper l yexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen, s ee Zheng, 422 F. 3d at106. B ecaus e the mot i on w as unt i m el y , w e maynotcons i deri t s m er i t s , and s peci fi cal l ySadi ku’ s cont ent i on thathe had ne w evi dence , the af or ement i oned s t at ement s , thatpr evi ous l yw er e unava i l abl e and thus pr ovi ded a ba s i s forr eopeni ng rem ov al proceed i ng s. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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.