T h e H on or abl e K ar l S. For es t er , U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e Eas t er n D i s t r i ct of K en t u ck y , s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 07a0527n.06 Filed: Jul y

25, 2007 No. 06-3431 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
GASPER P ALUSHAJ , L I Z E PAL USHAJ , DORI

NA PALUSHAJ , an d D I A N A P A L U S H A J, Pe tit ion e rs -A

pp e lla nts , v. AL B ERT O G ON Z AL ES, Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW F ROM THE B O A R D O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS OPI NI ON

Before: M OORE an d GILMAN, C ircuit Judges; and FORESTE R, District Judge
. * RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge . Gaspe r Palushaj, an e thnic Al b anian from Kosovo in the former republic of Yug oslavia, seeks revie w of a final order issued by the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (BIA) that de nied his motion t o reope n the re moval proce eding s broug ht
a g a ins t hi m by

the I mmi g ratio n a

nd Natur a lizatio n Se rv ic e . Hi s wi fe L ize and the ir tw o d a ug hte rs , Dorina and Diana, join his petition as der ivative applica nts. Palushaj’s initi al application for asylum was de nied a f

te r th e I mm ig r a ti o n Ju d g e ( I J) f o u n d h im n o t to b e c r e d ib le , a d e c is io n th a t was aff irmed by both the BIA and a pr ior pane l of this court. The sole issue nowon appea l is whetherNo. 06-3431

Palushaj v. Gonzales

- 2 - the B I A a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

de nyingPa lus ha

j’ s mo tio n to re op e n h is i mmi g ratio n p ro c e e din g s. For the re asons set for

th below, we DENY the petition for re view.

I. BACKG ROUND The ba sic fac ts of this case a re se t forth in this court’s ea rlier opinion, which g rante d Palushaj’s p et i t i o n for r eview ( reg ardingthe B I A’s denia l of his motion t o reope n) and r emande d the matter to the B I A:

The P e tit ion e r a

nd his fa mil y are e thn ic Al ba

nia ns fr om K os ov o in the forme r re public of Yugoslavia. They enter ed the United States on or about May

5, 2000 in San Dieg o, California, c rossingthe borde r from Mexico using f

raudule nt Au strian passports. On August 24, 2000, they filed claims for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and re lief under the Convention Ag ainst To rt ure. O n October 4, 2000, an asylum officer

from the Immigration and Natura liz ation Ser v ic e (now the Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

) i nterview ed Petitioner, found h i m n o t cr ed i b l e, an d re fe rr ed h i s ap p l i ca t i o nt o an i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge (“I J ”). Two day s later, the I

NS issued Notices to Appe ar to the Petitioner a nd his fa mil y , c ha rg ingthe m w ith ent e ri ngthe Un ite d St a te s w ith out a valid v is a o r d o c u me n t f o r e n tr y . A r e mo v a l h e ar in g w a s held on October 31, 2000. Throug h counsel, Petitioner conce ded remova bility and re newe d his applic ations for a sy lum, withholdi ng of remova l , and protection under the Conve ntion Aga inst Torture. At the last hea

ring , an I J denied the Petiti oner’ s applications and or dere d the Palushajs remove d from the United States.

. . . On J une 12, 2002, Petitioner’s orig inal counsel, Shulman, appe aled the I J ’s decision to the BIA. On June 26, 2003, the BIA af firmed the I J ’s dec ision without opinion. On J uly 1 5 , 2 0 0 3, Shulman’s leg al assistant, Gina Szy dlowski, appare ntly mailed a c opy

of the de cision to Petiti oner. Shulman maintains that he m ai led the dec ision to t he Petitioner’s home addr ess: 2417 Bur g er Stree t in Hamtramck,No. 06-3431

Palushaj v. Gonzales

- 3 -

Michig an. The letter fr om Sz y dlow[s] ki, howeve r, i ndicated that the letter wa s mailed to 2733 Be lmont in Hamtramck. Petitioner obtained newcou nsel who filed a motion to reopen the proce eding s, as his 30-day window t o petition for review of the B I A’s decision had ex pired by

the time Petitioner rec eived the B I A dec ision. Th e mot ion to re op e n simp ly a sk e d the B I A to re iss ue its de c isi on to a llo w P e t i t i o n e r

t o t i m e l y

a p p e a l , n o t i n g t h a tt h e f

a i l u r e t o t i m e ly a p p e a l w a s d

u e t o p r e v i o u s c o u n s e l ’ s e r r o r i nm a i l i n g t h e B IA decision to the wrong addre ss. The B I A denied the motion to reopen, no tin g that it

ha d proper ly

se rv e d Pe tit ion e r w itha c op y of its decision by

mailing it to his at t o rn ey as re quired by

the re levant re g ulatio ns . Pe tit ion e r t ime ly fi le d th e instan t pe tit ion wi th t his Court, challeng ing the BIA’s denia l of his motion t o reope n. Shulman, Palushaj’s orig inal attorney , had affirmatively repr esente d to the BIA in an ea rlier letter that Palushaj fa iled to provide Shulman with his new address. Be cause a review of the re cord
re ve a le d that S hu lm an’s r e pr e se ntatio n w a s in c or re c t, t his c ourt he ld t hat th e B I A “ e rr e d in concludingthat Petitioner failed to provide Shulman with his new a ddress.” We thus rema nded the matter to the B I A “to per mit it to consider Petitioner’s motion to reope n with t h e k n owledg e that Petitioner did not fail to update his addre ss.” On re mand, the B I A withdrewits ea r li e r o r d er be cause of this fac tual err or and a cknowledg ed that it c ou ld n ot d e te rm ine wi th c e rt a int y wh e ther S hu lm an h a d ma ile d th e B I A’ s d e c isi on to Pa lus ha j’ s “ ne we st, c or

re c t a dd re ss. ” I t on c e a g a in d e nie d th e mot ion to r e op e n, ho we ve r, be c a us e the or ig ina l de c isi on

ha d b e e n pro pe rl y

ma ile d to Shu lma

n a nd se rv ic e on

a pe tit ion e r’ s atto rn e y

is all that is require d under the applicable fede ral re g ulation. Palushaj has timely appea led.
II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of reviewNo. 06-3431

Palushaj v. Gonzales

- 4 - We review“the B I A’s dec ision to gra nt or deny

a motion to reopen unde r the ab u s e-of -discre tion standard.” Mansour v. Gonzales , 4 7 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 1 9 7 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ). “Abuse -of- d i s cr et i o n revie w re quires us to dec ide whethe r the de nial of the motion was made without a rational e x planation, inex p l i ca b l y depar ted from e stablished policies, or re sted on an impermissible basis such as invidious d i s crimi nation ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or

g roup.” Id
. (quota ti o nma

r k s o mi tt e d )
. T h e B I A ’ s inte r p r e tati o no f

immi g r a ti o nla

w an d a c c o mp any ing
re g ulatio ns is a c c or de d s ub sta nti a l de fe re nc e tha

t “ wi ll b e up he ld u

nle ss t he int e rp re tatio n is arbitra ry , capr icious, or manife stly contra ry to the statute.” Id . B e c a us e the pe tit ion e r d id n ot t ime ly appea l the BIA’s decision on the merits of his c laim, w e have jurisdiction to re view only the B I A’s decision deny

ing the motion to reopen the proc eeding s. See Prekaj v. I.N.S. , 384 F.3d 265, 267- 68 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding t hat t he alien’s failure to timely seek judicia l reviewof the B I A’s under ly ing
or de r o f r e mov a l li mit s th is c ourt ’s jur isd ic tio n to c on sid e ratio n o f whe the r t he B I A a bu se d it s discretion in deny

ing the petitioner’s motion to reopen)
. B. Denial of

the m otion to reopen Pa lus ha j and his fa mil y argue that th e B I A a

bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

de nyingthe mot ion

to
re op e n b e c a

us e the y had “no t on ly

pr ov ide d th e B oa

rd wi th a mpl e e vid e nc e to p ro ve that th e ir attorney ’s misconduct and a ffirmative m i s s t at em ents cost them the opportunity to appea l the I mmigra tio n Jud g e ’s su

bs tanti ve op ini on , b ut a lso the y de mon str a te d th e un de rl yingpr ima fa c ie evidenc e nec essar

y to show that ‘but for’ the attorney ’s failure to notify them of the B oard’ s decision the y c ou ld h ave pr e va ile d o n a pp e a l.” Mo st o f P a lus ha j’ s b ri e f i s d e vote d to re ite ratin g hisNo. 06-3431

Palushaj v. Gonzales

- 5 - substantive asylum claims, none of which a re be fore us on this appeal. Instead, the sole issue under consideration is whether the B I A abuse d its discretion in denying Palusha j’s motion to reopen. The only relief soug ht by

Palushaj in his motion to reope n is for the BIA t o reissue its J une 26, 2003 decision, which summar ily af fi rm ed the I J ’s dec ision denying Palusha j’s application for
a sylum and , b y e xten sio n, the de ri vativ e a pp lic a tio ns of

his fa mil y . Thi s w ou ld a llo w the Pa lus ha js to seek judicial re view of the merits of their c ase. The B I A’s initial denial of the motion to reope n, in its order date d November 13, 2003, rested on two separ ate g rounds: (1) the BIA’s conclusion that Palushaj failed to notify Shulman of his new addre ss, and (2) that the BIA proper ly serve d Shulman, which constitutes service on Palushaj under the applica

ble immigration regulation. U pon rec onsideration in Marc h of 2006, the B I A held that whether Palushaj had in fac t notified his attorney of his new address was not critical to its decision. I t denied Palushaj’s motion o n ce aga i n , rea soning that “[t] he cr itical fac t is that our decision was
corr ectly mailed to [P alushaj’s] attorney of re cord, a s require d by

fede ral re g ulations.” Th e ke y re g ulatio n is 8 C. F .R. § 1 29 2. 5( a ), wh ic h p ro vid e s th a t [w]he ne ve r a

pe rs on is r e qu ir e d b y any of

the pr ov isi on s o f t

his chapte r to g ive or be g iven notice; to serve or be serve d with any paper other than a

war rant of a rre st or a subpoena ; . . . [ then] such notice [or] service shall be g iven by or t o , serve d by

or upon, made by , or re quested of the attorney or re prese ntative of re cord, or the person himself if unr epre sented. Palushaj does not dispute that the BIA timely serve d notice on Shulman, Palushaj’s then attorne y of
rec ord, of its orig inal decision deny ing Palusha j’s petition on the merits. This effe ctively constituted notice to Palusha

j unde r the applicable regulation. Se e Sc or te an u v . I NS , 339 F.3d 407, 412 ( 6th Cir.No. 06-3431

Palushaj v. Gonzales

- 6 - 2003) (a ffirmingthe denial of t he petiti oner’ s motion t o reope n his deportation proc eeding s where the pet i tioner admitted that his then attorne y of re cord r ece ived timely notice of the deportation hear ing)
. Palushaj must satisfy a heavy burden of proof to show that reope ning his d ep o rt at i on proce eding s is warra

nted. See I

NS v. Abudu , 4 85 U. S. 9 4, 11 1 ( 19 88 ) (“ Th e a pp ro pr iate ana log y

[to
a n ali e n’ s motio n to r e o p e n ] i s a m o t i o nf o r a n e w t r i a l i na

c r i m i n a l c a s e o nt h e b a s i s o f n e w ly discovered ev i d en ce, a s to which courts have uniformly held that the moving party bear s a hea

vy burden.” ). We conclude that he has off ere d no fac ts to establish that the BIA abuse d its discretion in denying his motion.
III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we DENY the petition for re view.