NOT 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. 08- 1129

___________ YONG H UI J I ANG, 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 B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e D ani el M ei s ner

( A gencyN o. A 70- 088- 574)

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

A pr i l 7, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 9, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i oner , Y ong H ui J i ang, a ci t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, pet i t i ons f o r re v iew o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls’ (“ B IA ” ) o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . F o rth e f

o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.J ia n g e n te re dth e U .S . in M a y1 9 9 1 w ith f a ls e d o c u m e n ta tio n a n dw ith o u t a v is a . J i ang w as pl ace d i n exclus i on pr ocee di ngs atthatt i m e. J i ang conc eded thathe w as pr oper l yi n exclus i on pr ocee di ngs , admi tt ed exc l udabi l i ty , and appl i ed foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of deport at i on. A ft era mer i t s hear i ng, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) concluded that Jian g fa il ed to es tablish e ith er p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on gi ven hi s t es t i m onythathe s i m pl ypart i ci pat ed i n 6- 8 hour s of s tudent d e m o n stra tio n s in 1 9 8 9 , an dsu f f e re dn o h a ra ss m e n t o r h a rm o f a n yk in d . A c c o rd in g ly , in a d e c isio n iss u e din 1 9 9 2 , the IJ d e n ied Jia n g ’s a p p lica tio n s f o r re lief a n do rd e re dh im excluded. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) s um m ar i l ydi s m i s s ed J i ang’ s appea l in a n o rd e r d a ted Ja n u a ry2 7 , 1 9 9 5 , b e c a u se h e “ in n o m e a n in g f u l w a yid e n tifie dth e b a sis of the appe al fr om the dec i s i on of the i m m i gr at i on j udge. ” ( A . R . at626) . J i ang di d not f ile a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew in th is C o u rt. A ft erthe pas s age of

near l y10 y ear s , i n 2004, J i ang fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen. J i ang a ss e rte din th e m o tio n th a t h is s iste r-in -la w h a df iled a n I-1 3 0 p e tit io n o n b e h a lf o f h is f a m ily , an dth a t th e p e tit io n h a db e e n ap p ro v e din 1 9 9 4 . A d d iti o n a lly , Jia n g sta ted th a t, w hil e i tt oo k n earl ya deca de, the IN S had i ssued Ji ang and his w i fe i m m i grat i on vis a n u m b e rs , th u s re n d e ri n g th e m e lig ib le to a d ju s t th e irs ta tu s to th a t o f p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n ts . ( A . R . 565- 66) . G i ven thes e ci r cumst ance s and the fa ctthatJ i ang and hi s w i fe w er e now the par ent s of tw o y oung boy s ( w hi ch, theyar gued, w oul d s ubj ectthem t o for ced s t er i l i zat i on upon thei rr eturn t o C hi na) , he r eques t ed thatthe B I A r eopen hi s pr ocee di ngs 2Sect i on 1208. 18( b) ( 2) ( i ) pr ovi des thatan al i en undera fi nal or derof exc l us i on that 1 b e c a m e f in a l p rio r to M a rc h 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 m a ym o v e to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s f o r th e so le purpos e of s eeki ng pr ot ect i on under§ 1208. 16( c) ( forw i thhol di ng underC A T ) , butthat s u c h a “ m o tio n to re o p e n s h a ll n o t b e g ra n te du n le s s f ile dw ith in [ s ic ] J u n e 2 1 , 1 9 9 9 .” 3 and r emove the exc l us i on or dert o al l ow hi m t o, i nt eral i a, appl yforadj us tm entof s t atus and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) . T he B I A deni ed J i ang’ s r eopen mo t i o n a s h a v i n g b e e n f i l e do u to f

t i me u n d e rb o th 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) a n d8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 . Jia n g th e re a f terf iled a m o tio n a sk in g th e B IA to “ re c o n sid e r/re o p e n ” its 1 d ec isi o n , b u t th e B IA d en ied th e m o ti o n . P eti ti o n er d id n o t seek rev iew o f th at ord er. J i ang r eturned t o the B I A i n 2007 w i th y etanotherm ot i on, thi s t i m e s eeki ng l eave t o ei therfi l e a s ucce s s i ve mot i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C A T a n d /o r to re o p e n h is e x c lu sio n p ro c e e d in g s. O n c e a g a in , Jia n g a rg u e dth a t h is change d condi t i on ( i . e. , the bi rth of hi s tw o chi l dr en) and appr oved I - 130 pet i t i on w arr ant ed an ope ni ng of hi s exclus i on pr ocee di ngs s o thatthos e pr ocee di ngs coul d be admi ni s tr at i vel ycl os ed, thus al l ow i ng hi m t o appl yforan adj us tm entof hi s s t atus t o that of a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent . J i ang’ s abi l i tyt o fi l e foradj us tm entof s t atus w as cont i ngenton the s ucce s s of hi s w i fe’ s appl i cat i on foradj us tm entof s t atus . ( J oi ntM ot i on to H o ldP ro c e e d in g s in A b e y a n c e a t 1 .) T h e B IA a g a in d e n ied th e m o tio n , n o tin g th a t, becaus e J i ang w as i n exclus i on pr ocee di ngs , nei therthattr i bunal northe I Jhad juri sd ict ion o v er h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r ad justm en t of

statu s. (A . R . 2 . ). A s su ch , the B IA concluded thateven i f J i ang’ s m ot i on w er e nots ubj ectt o the t i m e and numberl i m i t at i ons in th e re g u latio n s, h is a lleg e de lig ib ili tyf o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s w o u ldn o t b e a v a lid rea so n to reo p en h is pro ce ed ing s in Im m igrati o n C o u rt . T h e B IA also d en ied J iang ’sr e ma i n i n g a r g u me n t s f o rr e o p e n i n g . J i a n g f

i l e da t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e re v iew th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n to re o p e n f o r a n ab u s e o f

d is c re tio n . F ilja v . G o n z a le s , 4 4 7 F .3 d2 4 1 , 2 5 1 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r th is s tan d a rd , w e m a yre v e rse th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n lyif it i s “ a rb itrary , irratio n a l, o r c o n tr a ry to la w .” S e v o ia n v . A s h c ro f t, 2 9 0 F .3 d1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 2 ). Jia n g c h a llen g e s o n lyth e B IA ’s d e c isio n to d e n yh is m o tio n to re o p e n b a se do n h is el i gi bi l i tyt o adj us thi s s t atus . H e r el i es pr i m ar i l yon Sheng G ao N i v. B . I . A . , 520 F. 3d 125 ( 2d C i r . 2008) , forthe pr opos i t i on thatthe B I A abus es i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng m ot i ons t o r eopen bypet i t i oner s s eeki ng adj us tm entof s t atus befor e the U ni t ed St at es C i t i zen and I m m i gr at i on Servi ces ( “U SC I S”) . I n Sheng G ao N i , w hi ch cons ol i dat ed thr ee c a se s, th e B IA d e n ied th re e m o tio n s to re o p e n o n th e b a sis th a t, pu rsu a n t to n e w ly adopt ed r egul at i ons , i tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i ons foradj us tm ent of s t atus . 520 F. 3d at129. T he Second Ci r cui tfound thatthe B I A ’ s deni al s cons t i tut ed a n e rr o r o f

la w b e c a u s e it d id n o t s e t f o rth a ra tio n a l e x p la n a tio n f o r i ts d e c is io n s . Id . W hi l e not i ng thatappl i cat i ons foradj us tm entof s t atus ar e pr oper l yfi l ed w i th U SC I S, the c o u rt h e ldth a t th e B IA f a iled to c o n sid e r “ w h e th e r th e p e tit io n e rs’ n e w f o u n dab ili tyto fi l e adjustm ent appl i cat i on s [w i th U S C IS] w arr anted a favo rabl e exerci se of [the B IA ’s ] di s cr et i on t o r eopen and cont i nue the pr ocee di ngs and ther ebyl i ftthe r emoval or der s . ” Id . a t 1 3 0 . Jia n g c o n ten d s th a t th e B IA e rre db yn o t co n sid e rin g re o p e n in g b a se do n h is a b ili ty to f ile a n a d ju stm e n t ap p lica tio n w ith th e U S C IS . In o th e r w o rd s, Jia n g w ish e dto f re e ly 4O f cour s e, J i ang’ s cas e w oul d notbe mooti f he c oul d s how thatthe B I A ’ s deni al of 2 h is m o tio n so m e h o w a f f e c ted h is w if

e ’s a d ju stm e n t ap p lica tio n . Jia n g h a s n o t m a d e th is s how i ng and i ti s notcl earw hetherhe coul d. W e do nots ee how a fa vor abl e dec i s i on f ro m th e B IA in h is c a se w o u ldh a v e a f f e c ted h is w if

e ’s a p p lica tio n f

o r a d ju stm e n t. 5 pur s ue adj us tm entw i th the U SC I S w i thoutr emai ni ng underan exc l us i on or der–a type of r el i ef thatSheng G ao N i s ugges t ed, atl eas t , thatthe B I A s houl d s er i ous l ycons i der . Si nce h is f ilin g , h o w e v e r, U S C IS h a s d e n ie dJ ia n g ’s w if e ’s m o tio n f

o r a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . ( R es p. ’ s M ot i on t o R es etB r i efi ng Schedul e at4. ) I nas m uch as hi s adj us tm entof s t atus w a s p re m ise do n th e su c c e ss o f h e r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s, Jia n g ’s c laim th a t th e B IA d id n o t co n sid e r h is a b ili tyto f ile f o r a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re o p e n is now m oot . See Los A ngel es C ountyv. D avi s , 440 U . S. 625, 631 ( 1979) ( A cas e i s m oot w her e “i nt er i m r el i ef orevent s have c om pl et el yand i rr evocabl yer adi cat ed the ef fec t s of the al l eged vi ol at i on. ”) . I n es s ence , becaus e J i ang i s no l ongerel i gi bl e foran adj us tm ent of s t atus , hi s cl ai m thatthe B I A err ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i derw hethers uch an a dj us tm ent wa rr a n t s r e - o p e n i n g i s n o l o n g e ra l i v e c o n tr o v e r s yf o ru s t o r e v i e w. 2 F o r th e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .