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 10-21-2005 

# Y i lm az v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3790

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Y i lm a z v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 367. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/367NOT 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 . 04- 3790

____________ KO KSA L YI LM AZ, 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

____________ O n 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 N o. A 70- 851- 394)
S u b mi t t e d P u r s u a n tt o T h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 34. 1( a)

O ct ober20, 2005 B E FO R E : SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, V A N A N T W E R PE N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: O ct ober21, 2005)
OP I NI ON
V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge 

### Peti ti on er Ko ksalYilm az(“ Yilm az ”) has fil ed thre e m otions to re op en a r em ov al or de r i s s ue d in a b sen tia b y

anImmig ratio nJu d g e (“IJ”) o nJu ly 6 , 1 9 9 4 . T h e m o stW e us e the t er m “I N S” t o i ncl ude the form erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce 1 as w el l as i t s s ucce s s oragenc i es , t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y , t he B ur eau of B o rd e r S e c u rity , an d th e B u re a u o f Im m ig ra tio n a n d C u sto m s E n f o rc e m e n t. 2 

### re ce nt m otion w as denied by the Board of

Im migrati onAp peal s ( “BIA”) onSeptem ber 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , h o l d i n g th at

i t w a s b arr e db y th e t i m e an dnum e ri c a ll i mi t at i o n s i m p o s e db y 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c)(2 ), an dth is P etitio nf o r R ev iewf

o llo w ed . F o r th e reaso n s set f o rth be l ow, we wi l lde ny

the Pe t i t i on. I . FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HI STORY Yi l m azi s anat i ve of Turke y who l e ga l l y

e nt e r e d the Uni t e d St at e s a s anonimmig ran t v isito r o nO cto b er 2 8 , 1 9 9 3 . Y ilm az f ailedto co m

p ly w ithth e requ irem ents of hi s non- i mmi gr ant

vi s i t or s t at us , and the form e r

INS i ni t i at e d r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs by 1 

### p erso n ally

serv in g h im

w ithanO rd er to S h o wC au se (“O S C ”) o nD ecem b er 2 8 , 1 9 9 3 . The OSC a dvi s e d Yi l m azthat he c oul d be de port e d in a b sen tia if he fail ed to appear at hi s he ari ng. Howe ve r , the OSC di d not c ont a i n any

i nform at i on r e gar di ng the t i m e and pl a c e of Yi l m az ’ s i m

pe ndi ng he ari ng. I ns t e a d, i t s t at e d that

anot i c e of he ari ng woul d be s e nt t o hi s l a s t

known a ddr e s s and a dvi s e d Yi l m azt o r e port any c hange i n a ddr e s s t o the I J . As of De c e m be r 28 , 19 93 , Yi l m azr e s i de d at 11 4 I r onwo od , Le vi tt own, PA . OnFebruary

16 , 199 4, the I mmigrati onCo urt s ent a no ti ce of hearing v ia

ce rtifie d
m a i lt o Yi l m azat

114 I r onwood. Howe ve r , by that t i m e , Yi l m azha d m ove d wi thout in f o rmin g th e auth o rities o f

th e ad dress ch an g e, as h e w as in stru ctedto d o inth e O S C . Th e notic e of h eari ng was thu s r et urned to the Im

migrati onCo urt “ un cl ai m ed” on M ar ch3



### 10, 1994. Whe n Yi l m azs ubs e que nt l y di d not a ppe ar at the he ari ng, the I Jpr oc e e de d in
a b sen tia , f

o un dY ilm az d ep o rtab le, an dissu edano rd er o f d ep o rtatio n , w h ichw as also s e nt t o hi s l a s t

known a ddr e s s at

114 I r onwood. O nD ecem

b er 1 9 , 1 9 9 5 , Y ilm az m arrieda U n itedS tates citizen , w h o f ileda v isa pe t i t i on on be ha l f of Yi l m azon May 14, 1996. The pe t i t i on wa s a ppr ove d on Augus t

16, 1996. I n e ar l y

1996, Yi l m azr e t a i ne d St e ve n Vos bi ki an, Es q. ( “ Vos bi ki an” ) , who fi l e d a
m ot i on t o r e ope n Yi l m az ’ s i mmi gr at i on pr oc e e di ngs i n or de r t o s e e k an a djus tm e nt

of s t at us ba s e d s ol e l y

on hi s m arri a ge t o ac i t i z e n. On J anuary 15, 1998, an I Jde ni e d the
m o tio n , f in d in g th at Y ilm az f

ailedto p resen t ex cep tio n al circum stan ces j u stif yin g h is
abs e nc e at

the i ni t i a lde port at i on he ari ng. The BI A a ffi rm e d on Nove m be r 10, 1999, find ing that t

he m otion to reopen w as un ti m ely un der 8 C.F.R. § 1 00 3.23 (b)( 1) and that Yi l m azfa i l e d t o i nc lude hi s a ppl i c at i on for

a djus tm e nt

of s t at us and s upport i ng do cum ents with the motion, as re qu ir ed by 8 C .F.R. §§ 1 00 3.2© and 1 00 3.23 (b)( 3). On De c e m

be r 8, 1999, Yi l m az , s t i l lr e pr e s e nt e d by Vos bi ki an, fi l e d am ot i on for

“ r e c ons i de r at i on, ” a s s e rt i ng the s am e ar gum e nt s a s the pr e vi ous m ot i on t o r e ope n, but thi s t i m e att a c hi ng the a

ppr opri at e s upport i ng doc um e nt at i on. Be c aus e thi s m ot i on in clu d edn ewev id en ce, th e B IAd eterm in edth at it w as actu ally a seco n dm o tio nto reo p en , rath er th ana m o tio nf o r reco n sid eratio n . Co m

p a re8 U .S.C. § 12 29 a( c) (6) w ith 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a(c )( 7). The BIA thu s denie d this s ec on d m otion to reopen o n S epte m ber 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , f

in d in g th at it w as num erically b arredun d er 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c)(2 ).W hi l e hi s fi r s tpet i t i on forr evi ew w as pendi ng i n t hi s C our t , Y i l m az a l s o fi l ed an 2 att o rne yg ri ev an ce ag ains t V o sb ikian b ef o re the E thics C o m m ittee o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt of N ew J er s ey( t he Et hi cs C om m i t t ee” )
. T he Et hi cs C om m i t t ee di s m i s s ed the gr i evanc e o n Ja n u a ry8 , 2 0 0 4 , an d Y ilm a z re -f iled o n M a rc h 5 , 2 0 0 4 . T h e se c o n d g rie v a n c e is s til l pendi ng befor e the Et hi cs C om m i t t ee. 4 

### A f ter h irin g n ewco un sel, M aria Isab el A .N . T h o m as (“T h o m as”), Y ilm az f iledh is fi r s t pe t i t i on for

r e vi e w wi th thi s Court

s e e ki ng r e vi e w of the BI A’ s de ni a lof the s e c ond
m ot i on t o r e ope n. W e found that the BI A e rr e d i n a

ppl yi ng the num e ri c a ll i mi t at i ons of § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c)(2 ). See8 C .F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )( 3) (s etti ng fo rth an excepti onto the num eric al li mit ation o n m otions to re op en fo r m otions to re op en proceedings that wer e c on du ct ed in a b sen tia ). H o w ev er, w e h eldth at th e seco n dm o tio nw as p ro p erly d en iedb ecau se it f ailedto co rrect th e untim elin ess o f th e f irst m o tio nto reo p en . Y

ilm az v. A sh cro

ft , 83 F ed . Ap p x . 4 1 3 , 4 1 5 -1 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ). Y ilm az n o wattrib utes th e sh o rtco min g s inh is f irst tw o m o tio n s to reo p ento h is pri or c ouns e l , Vos bi ki an, and he fi l e d athi r d m ot i on t o r e ope n on Mar c h 22, 2004, cl ai ming ineff

ec ti ve as si st ance of

coun se l. Th e BIA denied the m otion o n S epte m ber 2 

### 16 , 200 4, ho lding that i t was bo th un ti m ely and num eric al ly

barr ed un der § 10 03 .2(c )( 2). Yilm azargu ed that

the tim e for fili ng his motion to reopen sho uld b e e qu it ably toll ed beca use his failure t o tim ely

filewas due to Vo sbikian’s i neff ec ti veness . The BIA re ject ed this argum ent, find ing that Yilm azwas on n otic e of V osbikian’s al le ged i ne ffe c t i ve ne s s whe n hi s pri or m ot i ons t o r e ope n we r e de ni e d i n Nove m be r 1999 and S ep tem b er 2 0 0 2 . T hu s, ev enif

equ itab le to llin g w ere ap p licab le, th e B IAf o un dth at itT he Pet i t i on forR evi ew i n t hi s cas e w as fi l ed pr i ort o t he ena ct m entof R eal I D A ct 3 of 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 St at . 231. U nderpr e- R eal I D A ctl aw , w e appl i ed the t r ans i t i onal rul es of § 309© of t he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr ant R e sp o n sib ili tyA c t o f

1 9 9 6 (“ IIR IR A ” ), P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 -2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S tat. 3 0 0 9 , to c a se s in w hich i m m i grat i on proceed i ng s w ere i nit i at ed p ri or t o A pri l 1, 19 97 . U nd er tho se rules , ourj ur i s di ct i on overa pet i t i on forr evi ew w as defi ned byt he form erI m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) § 106, 8 U . S. C . § 1105a ( r epea l ed)
. H ow ever , § 106( d) of the R eal I D A cts t at es : “TR A N SI T I O N A L R U L E C A SE S. – A pet i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed un der form er s ect i on 10 6(a) of the [IN A ] . . . shal l be tr eat ed as i f i thad been fi l ed as a p e tit io n f o r re v iew u n d e r se c tio n 2 4 2 o f th e [ IN A ] (8 U .S .C . 1 2 5 2 ), as a m e n d e d b yth is s ect i on. ” J ur i s di ct i on overY i l m az’ s Pet i t i on forR evi ew i s t her efor e governed by§ 1252, even though hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed pr i ort o A pr i l 1, 1997. 5 

### woul d not

e xt e nd Yi l m az ’ s fi l i ng de a dl i ne a s far a s Mar c h 22, 2004. Yi l m azfi l e d a Pe t i t i on for

Re vi e w wi th thi s Court

on Se pt e m

be r 24, 2004. I I . JURI SD I CT I ONAN D S TAND ARD O F REV I EW Thi s Court

ha s juri s di c t i on ove r

Yi l m az ’ s t i m e l y

Pe t i t i on for

Re vi e w pur s uant

t o 8 U. S. C. § 1252. W e r e vi e w the BI A’ s de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e c ons i de r or r e ope n for 3 

### ab u se o f d iscretio n . S

evo ia n v. A sh cro

ft , 290 F.3d16 6, 17 0 (3dCir. 20 02 ). III . A N A L Y S IS A s w e pr evi ous l ynot ed i n Y i lm az , 83 Fed. A ppx. at416, Y i l m az’ s t i m e t o fi l e a
m o tio n to re o p e n e x p ir e d , p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )( 1 ), o n S e p te m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 9 6 . Y i l m az now as s er t s t w o bas es forexcus i ng hi s fai l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e. Fi r s t , he as s er t s t hat th e d e la yw a s c a u s e d b yV o s b ik ia n ’s in e f f e c tiv e n e s s . S e c o n d , h e in v o k e s 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( A ) ( 2) , w hi ch al l ow s an al i en w hos e deport at i on or derw as ent er ed in
a b se n tia t o fi l e a mot i on t o r eopen “ [a] tanyt i m e i f the al i en demonstr at es t hathe ors he di d notr ece i ve not i ce. . . . ” W e w i l l addr es s eac h of thes e ar gum ent s i n tur n.T o t he ext entt hatY i l m az a s s er t s a s epar at e cl ai m t hatV os bi ki an’ s r epr es ent at i on 4 w as cons t i tut i onal l yi neff ect i ve s uch thatY i l m az w as depr i ved of hi s Fi fth A m endment r i ghtt o due pr oces s i n hi s i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ng, t hatcl ai m m us tal s o fai l
. Y i l m az doe s notcl ai m t hatV os bi ki an w as r es pons i bl e forhi s fai l ur e t o appea rbefor e the I J . I ndeed, he ca nnotm ake thi s cl ai m , as he di d notr et ai n V os bi ki an unt i l 1996. R ather , Y i l m az cl ai m s t hatV os bi ki an’ s “i neff ect i venes s ” ar os e fr om hi s fai l ur e t o fi l e a t i m el yand compl et e mot i on t o r eopen. A l t hough t hi s C our thas r ecogni zed a Fi fth A m endment r i ght to c o u n s e l in im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s , s ee, e. g. , P o n c e -L e iva v . A sh c ro ft , 331 F. 3d 369 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , t hatr i ghthas notbeen e xt ended t o guar ant ee e ffe ct i ve as s i s t ance i n t he fil ing o f m o ti o n s to reo p en o r reco n side r. 6 F irst, re g a rd in g th e a lleg e d in e f f e c tiv e n e ss o f

c o u n se l in f

a ili n g to f

ile a tim e ly
m ot i on t o r eopen, w e agr ee w i t h t he B I A t hatequi t abl e t ol l i ng, i f appl i cabl e, w oul d not ext end Y i l m az’ s fi l i ng dat e t o M ar ch 22, 2004. E ven i f w e ac ceptt he ar gum entt hat V os bi ki an’ s r epr es ent at i on w as defi ci entand pr ej udi ced Y i l m az by“w as t [i ng] pet i t i oner ’ s one oppor tuni t yt o r eopen, ” L a r iz v . I NS , 2 8 2 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 4 (9th C ir
. 2002) , Y i l m az w as r epr es ent ed bynew couns el byN ovember 2002. A tt hatt i m e,

4 Y il m az h ad sen t a l ett er to V o sb ikian ind icati n g that h e w as d isplease d w ith V o sb ikian ’s repr esent at i on . M oreove r, Y i l m az fi l ed the E t hics C om m i t t ee gri evan ce aga i nst V o s b ik ia n o n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 . I ti s t her efor e appa r entt hatY i l m az ha d actual know l edge of t he al l eged e r r or s of hi s pr i orcouns el atl eas t16 m ont hs befor e he f i l ed the mot i on t o r eopen a l l egi ng in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e . A s s u c h , ev e n if th e S e p tem b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 6 f ili n g d e a d lin e sh o u ld have be en equi t abl yt ol l ed fora per i od nece s s aryt o acc ountforV os bi ki an’ s al l egedY ilm a z ’s a rg u m e n t th a t w e sh o u ld g ra n t nunc pr o t unc re lief to d e e m h is m o tio n to 5 re o p e n to h a v e b e e n tim e ly f ile d a ls o f

a ils f o r t h e s a m e re a s o n s . N unc pr o t unc , li ter a lly “now fort hen, ” al l ow s a courts i t t i ng i n equi t yt o deem an act i on t o have be en t aken a s of a tim e w h e n it sh o u ld h a v e b e e n tak e n , b u t w a s n o t d u e to c irc u m sta n c e s n o t attrib u tab le to th e la c h e s o f

th e p a rt ie s . Mi t chel lv. O verm an , 1 0 3 U .S . 6 2 , 6 5 (1 8 8 1 ); see al so Edwa r d s v . I NS , 3 9 3 F .3 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 8 -3 1 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); I a v o rs k i v . I

NS , 232 F. 3d 124, 1 3 0 n . 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ); Ba t a n i c v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 662, 667 ( 7t h C i r . 1993)
. H er e, even i f a cert ai n m eas ur e of de l ayw er e due t o at t or neyoragenc yerr or , t hatt he del ayw as pr ol onged t o t he l at e dat e of M ar ch 22, 2004, i s di r ect l yat t r i but abl e t o t he i nact i on of Y ilm a z a n d h is c u rre n t co u n se l. 7 negl i gence , t hatper i od w oul d have run l ong befor e M ar ch 22, 2004. 5 Y ilm a z a ss e rts, h o w e v e r, th a t th e f ili n g d e a d lin e sh o u ld b e f u rth e r to lled u n til January8, 20 04 , w hen t he E t hics C om m i t t ee of fi ci al l ydis m i ssed hi s gri evan ce aga i nst V os bi ki an. H e s t at es t hathe “a s s um [ed] t hathe s houl d have a pos i t i ve det er m i nat i on of M r . V os bi ki an’ s m al fea s ance befor e he c oul d fi l e a mot i on t o r eopen hi s cas e. . . . ” B r i ef forPet i t i onerat17- 18. H ow ever , Y i l m az ha s pr ovi ded no author i t yi ndi cat i ng t hat obt ai ni ng a pos i t i ve det er m i nat i on i s a nec es s arypr er equi s i t e t o fi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen b a s e d o 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. I n M at t erof Lozada , 19 I . & N . D ec. 637 ( B I A 1998) , t he B I A s etfor t h pr ocedur al
r equi r ement s t hatm us tbe s at i s fi ed i n or dert o r eopen i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs bas ed on an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m , one of w hi ch i s t he “ba rcompl ai nt ” r equi r ement . U nder t hi s r equi r ement , t he al i en mustei t herfi l e a c om pl ai ntagai ns tfor m ercouns el w i t h t he
a p p ro p ria te d isc ip lin a rya u th o rities o r e x p lain h is f a ilu re to d o so . A lth o u g h a n a lien is
r equi r ed t o f

i l e a barcompl ai nt , t hi s does notcr eat e an obl i gat i on t o obt ai n a pos i t i ve det er m i nat i on f

ro m th e d is c ip lin a ry a u th o ri tie s b e f o re f ilin g a m o tio n to re o p e n .W e n o te i n p assin g that the v eryerro r th at Y il m az claim s ren d ere d V o sb ikian ’s 6 as s i s t ance i neff

ect i ve – unt i m el yfi l i ng of a mot i on t o r eopen – w as actual l yr epea t ed by h is c u rre n t co u n se l. W e a lso n o te th e n u m e ro u s typ o g ra p h ica l, l e g a l, an d lo g ica l er ro rs in t he Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef t o t hi s C our t . N ot w i t hs t andi ng t hes e def i ci enci es , w e w er e not hi nder ed i n ourabi l i t yt o det er m i ne the mer i t s of thi s cas e. 8 M or eover , as Y i l m az hi m s el f poi nt s out , t hi s C our thas s t at ed thatt he barcompl ai nt
re q u ire m e n t “is n o t an a b so lu te r e q u ire m e n t,” a n d th a t “th e f a ilu re to f

ile a c o m p lain t is
n o t fat al i f a pe t i t i onerpr ovi des a r eas onabl e expl anat i on forhi s orherdeci s i on. ” Lu v. A sh c ro ft , 25 9 F . 3d 12 7, 13 5 (3d C i r. 20 01 ) ( em ph asi s i n o ri ginal ). T herefore, becau se Y i l m az w as noti n fac tr equi r ed t o w ai tforthe Et hi cs C om m i t t ee de t er m i nat i on, t he fi l i ng of a gr i evanc e aga i ns tV os bi ki an ca nnotj us t i fyequi t abl e t ol l i ng bey ond t he dat e w hen Y i l m az and his curr ent coun sel l earned o f his pri or at t orney ’s al l eged i neff ect i ven ess. 6 W e al s o fi nd t hatY i l m az c annotj us t i fyhi s l at e fi l i ng bas ed on a l ack of or al not i ce of t he cons equenc es of fa i l i ng t o appea rforhi s hear i ng. B eca us e Y i l m az’ s i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed pr i ort o t he 1996 amendm ent s t o t he I N A , w e mustappl yt he not i ce r equi r ement s s etfor t h i n for m erI N A § 242B ( r epea l ed)
. U ndert hats ect i on, an al i en coul d fi l e forr eopeni ng of an in a b se n tia depor t at i on or der“atanyt i m e” by d e mo n s t r a t i n g t h a th e d i d n o tr e c e i v e n o t i c e “ i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h p a r a g r a p h ( a ) ( 2 )
. ” I NA § 242B ( c) ( 3) ( r epea l ed)
. Sect i on 242B ( a) ( 2) i n tur n onl yr equi r ed w r i t t en n o tice , eith e r in per s on orbycert i fi ed mai l
. Such w r i t t en not i ce w as s uffi ci entundert he A cti f i tw as s ent to th e las t k n o w n a d d re ss p ro v id e d b yth e a lien . IN A § 2 4 2 B (c )(1 ) (re p e a led ); c f. Fu e n t e s -Ar

g u e t a v . I

NS , 1 0 1 F .3 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 2 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (n o tice se n t b yc e rtifie d m a il t o9

th e a lien ’s la st k n o w n a d d re ss w a s s u f f icie n t u n d e r th e IN A w h e re th e a lien f a iled to in f o rm th e c o u rt o f

a n a d d re s s c h a n g e , e v e n th o u g h it w a s re tu rn e d “ u n c la im e d ” ). A s s u c h , th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt s e n t n o tic e “ in a c c o rd a n c e w ith p a ra g ra p h (a )( 2 ),” and Y i l m az ther efor e ca nnotbenef i tfr om t he l anguage of form er§ 242B ( c) ( 3) t hat
a llo w e d f

ili n g o f a m o tio n to re o p e n “ a t an ytim e .” M o re o v e r, an a lien w h o w ish e d to
m ove t o r eopen ba s ed on a l ack of o ra l n o ti ce co u ld d o so in ac co rda n ce w ith fo rm er § 242B ( e) ( 1) , w hi ch di d notper m i tm ot i ons t o be fi l ed “a tanyt i m e, ” butr atherr equi r ed the
m o v a n t to c o m p ly w ith th e tim e lim ita tio n s im p o s e d u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b ). T her efor e, t he l ack of o ra l w arni ng di d notent i t l e Y i l m az t o fi l e a mot i on t o r eopen “ at anyt i m e” un der t he p re- II R IR A i m m i grat i on l aw s. Fi nal l y , al t hough t he not i ce pr ovi ded byt he I m m i gr at i on C our tw as s uffi ci ent undert he s t atut e, Y i l m az a l s o as s er t s t hatt he entr yof a de por t at i on in a b se n tia w i t hout f irst p ro v id in g h im a n o ra l w a rn in g o f th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f

f a ili n g to a p p e a r v io late d h is Fi ft h A m endment r i ghtt o due pr oces s . T he D ue Pr oces s cl aus e r equi r es t hatnot i ce be “r eas onabl ycal cul at ed, underal l t he ci r cumst ance s , t o appr i s e i nt er es t ed part i es of the pendenc yof t he ac t i on and af for d t hem an oppor tuni t yt o pr es entt hei robj ect i ons . ” Mul l ane v. C entr alH

anoverB ank & Trus tC o. , 3 3 9 U . S . 3 0 6 , 3 1 4 (19 5 0 ). T hi s does not im p o s e a re q u ir e m e n t th a t n o tic e is a c tu a lly re c e iv e d
. I n t hi s cas e, t he O SC i ns t ruct ed Y i l m az t o i nfor m t he I J of anyaddr es s change and
w arned hi m of t he cons equenc es of fa i l i ng t o do s o. T he O SC al s o w arned Y i l m az that10

he coul d be or der ed deport ed in a b se n tia if h e f a ile d to a tte n d h is im p e n d in g h e a ri n g . Y i l m az i gnor ed thes e w arni ngs and negl ect ed t o i nfor m t he I J of hi s addr es s change
. T he
cour t ’ s cert i fi ed mai l i ng of t he not i ce of hear i ng t o Y i l m az’ s l as tknow n addr es s w as t hus
re a s o n a b ly ca lc u la te d u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s to re a c h h im
. S e e Fu e n tes -A rg u e ta , 101 F .3 d a t 8 7 2 ; se e a lso G u ru n gv . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 1 F . 3 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 1 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Es tr ada- Troc hez , 6 6 F . 3 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 5 (5th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). I V. CO NC L US I ON I n s um , Y i l m az ha s offe r ed no l egal l ys uffi ci entexcus e fordel ay i ng t he fi l i ng of hi s curr entm ot i on t o r eopen unt i l M ar ch 22, 2004. H e has al s o fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a
co g n izab le du e p roc ess c lai m . W e the ref o re f ind n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in the B IA ’s deci s i on t o denyt he mot i on. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons w e w i l l denyt he Pet i t i on for Re v i e w.