2007 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 4-13-2007 

# S ark e r 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 . 05-5109

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_2007

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 2007 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 arke r v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1310. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1310NOT 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. 05- 5109

——————— M OHA M M ED E M DAD UL HAQU E S ARKER, Pet i t i oner 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 Fi l e N o. A 76- 506- 649

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

N ovember8, 2006 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C h ie f

J u d g e , M c K E E a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2007)

——————— OP I NI ON

———————2

M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge M ohamm ed Em dadul H aque Sarkerpet i t i ons forr evi ew of the O ct ober20, 2005, O rderof the B oard of

Im m i grat i on A pp eal s deny i ng his m oti on t o reope n p roceedings, a n d a f f i r mi n g t h e I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s o r d e ro f r e mo v a l . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I. I nas m uch as w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual and pr ocedur al hi s t or yof thi s appea l , w e nee d notr ei t er at e the fa ct s exce pti ns ofaras m ay be hel pful t o ourbr i ef di s cus s i on. O n N ovember16, 2004, Sar ker , r epr es ent ed bynew couns el , att or neyA ns er A hm ad, fi l ed a s econd mot i on t o r eopen r emoval pr ocee di ngs t o cont es tpr ocee di ngs t hat had cul m i nat ed i n Sar kerbei ng or der ed r emoved in a b se n tia . T he mot i on al l eged that Sar ker ’ s w i fe ha d fi l ed an I - 130 pet i t i on on hi s behal f, t hatSar kerhad notr ece i ved not i ce of the r emoval hear i ng m ai l ed t o hi s Phi l adel phi a addr es s , and thatSar ker ’ s form er at t or ney , M arvi c Thom ps on, pr ovi ded i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n r el at i on t o t he fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen. T he mot i on al s o s t at ed thatSar keri nt ended t o fi l e an i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im a g a in st T h o m p so n . T h e IJ d e n ied S a rk e r’s se c o n d m o tio n to r eopen hol di ng t hati tw as barr ed by8 C . F. R . § 3. 23( b) ( 1) ( 1998) ( corr es pondi ng pr ovi s i ons now codi fi ed at8 C . F. R . 1003. 23( b) ( 1) , ( 4) ( 2005) ) , w hi ch al l ow s onl yone m o ri o n to re o p e n a b s e n t c e rt a in c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t a re n o t p re s e n t h e re . T he B I A aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatSar ker ’ s s econd mot i on t o r eopen w as barr ed by8 C . F. R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( 2005) . T he B I A al s o rul ed that , even i f the3

m ot i on w er e notbarr ed bas ed upon Sarker ’ s al l egat i on of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , Sar kerfai l ed t o m eett he r equi r ement s fores t abl i s hi ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el undert he pr ocedur e s etfor t h i n M at t erof Lozada , 1 9 I. & N . D ec . 6 3 7 (B IA 1988) . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (20 0 0 ). W e re v iew the B IA ’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re o p e n re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . McAl l is t erv. A .G . o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , 4 4 4 F . 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A s w e r ece nt l yexpl ai ned i n Lunt ungan v. A . G . of the U ni t ed Stat es , 449 F. 3d 551, 555 ( 3d. C i r . 2006) , t he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ctof 1996 expr es s l yl i m i t s t he numberof m ot i ons t o r eopen Sarkercan f i l e. See 8 C. F . R. 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )( 4 )( ii) (“ [ a ]n a lie n m a yf ile o n ly o n e m o tio n p u rs u a n t to th is p a ra g ra p h .” ). S arkercl ai m s that the n um eri cal l i m i t at i on shou l d n ot be app l i ed to hi m becau se h e d id n o t r e c e iv e e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l f

o r h is f ir s t p e titio n to re o p e n . A s s um i ng ar

guendo t hatt he s i ngl e mot i on l i m i t at i on does notappl yt o an al i en w ho i ni t i al l yr ece i ves i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n t r y i ng t o r eopen a r emoval pr ocee di ng aft erbei ng or der ed r emoved in a b se n tia , w e neve r t hel es s agr ee w i t h t he B I A ’ s concl us i on t hatSar kerdi d notpr oper l yr ai s e thatcl ai m her e. I n L u v . A sh c ro ft , 259 F. 3d 127, 132, w e adopt ed the r equi r ement s foras s er t i ng a cl ai m fori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el t hathad bee n s etfor t h i n M at t erof Lozada , s upr a. Lozada r equi r es t hatt he mot i on al l egi ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el m us tbe s uppor t ed byan aff i davi t“thats et s for t h i n det ai l t he agr eementt hatw as ent er ed i nt o w i t h form ercouns el4

w i t h r es pectt o t he ac t i ons t o be t aken on a ppeal and w hatcouns el di d ordi d notr epr es ent t o t he r es pondenti n t hi s r egar d[. ] ” I n addi t i on, form ercouns el m us tbe i nform ed of the all eg ati o n s an d p rov ided an o p p o rtu n ityto resp o n d p ri o r t o ap p ea l t o the B IA . W h ere a p p lica b le, th e m o tio n sh o u ld a lso sta te w h e th e r a c o m p lain t h a s b e e n f iled w ith appr opr i at e pr ofes s i onal di s ci pl i naryauthor i t i es and, i f not , i ts houl d expl ai n w hyno s uch compl ai ntw as fi l ed. 19 I . & N . D ec. at639. H er e, i ti s undi s put ed thatSar kert w i ce f i l ed mot i ons t o r eopen r emoval p ro c e e d in g s. A p p . 1 6 -2 7 , 3 9 -4 8 . T h u s, a b se n t so m e e x c e p tio n , S a rk e r’s se c o n d m o tio n to r eopen i s num er i cal l ybarr ed byt he pl ai n l anguage of the governi ng s t atut e and re g u la tio n . See Lunt ungan, 449 F. 3d at557. S a r k e rd o e s n o tp r e c i s e l ye x p l a i n wh e t h e rh e i s s e e k i n g a n e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g o f t i me lim its o n m o tio n s to re o p e n o r a “ to llin g ” o f th e n u m e ri c a l lim it o n s u c h m o tio n s . Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at13- 14. H ow ever , underei t hert heory , he musts at i s fyt he Lozada r equi r ement s forr ai s i ng a cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . A s t he A t t or ney G ener al not es , Sar ker ’ s aff i davi tonl ys t at es t hatSar ker“i nt ends t o fi l e a Lozado ( s i c) cl ai m agai ns tA t t or neyT hom ps on. ” A pp. 17. Sar kerr ece i ved a c opyof the I J ’ s r emoval or deron J anuary24, 2002. A pp. 16. H e has been r epr es ent ed byhi s pr es entcouns el s i nce N ovember2004. Sar kerhas t her efor e had s uffi ci entt i m e t o compl yw i t h t he re q u ir e m e n ts f

o r r a is in g a n in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im . See al

s o Mahm ood , 427 F. 3d at252- 53 ( deny i ng pet i t i on forr evi ew bas ed on equi t abl e t ol l i ng cl ai m forw ant of due di l i gence ) . A ccor di ngl y , t he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he i ns t ant m ot i on t o r eopen.5

Sar keral s o s eeks r el i ef ba s ed on hi s change d per s onal ci r cumst ance s . H e i s now m arried to a U n it ed S tat es c it izen an d theyh av e a ch il d w h o is al so a c it izen . S ark er’s w ife su b m itted a n I-13 0 p eti ti o n o n h is be h alf p rom p tl yaf ter th eir m arriage . P eti ti o n er’s B r . at14- 15. A s t he G overnm entcorr ect l ynot es , t he governi ng s t atut e and r egul at i on do n o t r e c o g n iz e th is e x c e p tio n to th e lim ita tio n im p o s e d o n m o tio n s to re o p e n . R e sp o n d e n t’s B r. at 1 2 ; s ee 8 U . S. C . 1229a( c) ( 7) ; 8 C . F. R . 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) . R ather , t he r egul at i ons onl yr ecogni ze “ change d ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n t he countr yof nat i onal i t yor i n t he countr yt o w hi ch deport at i on has been or der ed, ” nott he pet i t i oner ’ s change d p e rso n a l circ u m sta n c e s h e re . 8 C .F .R . 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii) (2 0 0 5 ); s ee, e. g. , H addad v .G o n z a le s , 4 3 7 F .3 d 5 1 5 , 5 1 7 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Zheng v. U. S. D ep’ tof Jus t i ce , 416 F. 3d 1 2 9 , 1 3 0 -31 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). III . F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w .