FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 2, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16920 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 399- 389 H U S S A M C H A H I N , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 2, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P e titio n e rH u s s a m C h a h in , ac itiz e n a n dn a tiv e o f S y r ia , th r o u g h c o u n s e l, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ’ s ” ) de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on Judge ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) f i na l r e m ova l or de ra nd de ni a l of C hahi n’ s m ot i on t o reopen h i s a sy l um hear i ng . C hahi n m i ss ed hi s s chedul ed M a r c h 14, 2005, a s y l um he a r i ng, a nd i ti s hi s r e a s ons a s t o w hyhe m i s s e d the h e a r in g th a t ar e th e s ub

je c t o f th e in s tan t p e titio n . I n hi s pe t i t i on, C ha hi n a r gue s tha the s uf f e r e d f r om i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of co u n sel b ecau se, o v er th e fo u r-year co u rse o f th ei r rel at i o n sh i p , h i s att o rn ey al w ays h a dp r o v id e dh im w ith p r io rn o tic e o f h is im m ig r a tio n h e a r in g s , s o h e e x p e c te dto h e a rf r o m h is a tto rn e yr e g a r d in g th e h e ar in g th a t h e m is s e d . H e c o n te n d s th a t, h is f a i l ur e t o appe a rw a s unde r s t a ndabl e due t o the f a c t s tha t( 1) s hort l ybe f

or e the hear i ng , he and h i s f

am i l y had t o chang e r es i dences ; and (2) because of that c h a n g e , h is f

o rm e ra tto rn e yc la im e dth a t h e w a s u n ab le to g e t in to u c h w ith th e m .

“ In thi s C i rc ui t , w e r evi ew the [I J] ' s deni alof a m ot i on t o reopen rem ov al proceedi ng s f

or abuse of di sc re t i on . ” D akane v . U . S. A t t ' yG e n. , 399 F . 3d 1269, 1272 n. 2 ( 11th C i r2005) . “ W e r e vi e w onl ythe [ B I A ’ s ] de c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the ex ten t th at itex p re ss ly ad o p ts th e I J’s o p in io n . In so fa r a s th e B o ar dad o p ts th e I J’s re as on i ng , w e w i l l re vi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on as w el l . ” N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 257 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). H er e, because the B IA adop t ed th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , b u ta l s o p r o v i d e di t s o wn a n a l y s i s f o rwh yth e I Jwa s c o rr e c t , we3

r e v ie w th e r e a s o n in g o f b o th th e B I A a n dth e I J . See i d. A nya l i e n, w ho, a f

t e rw r i tt e n not i c e ha s be e n pr ovi de d, doe s nota tt e nd a pr oc e e di ng, s ha l l be or de r e d r e m ove d in a b s e n tia i f the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ( “ I N S ” ) e s t abl i s he s by“ c l e a r , une qui voc a l , a nd c onvi nc i ng e v i d e n c e ” th a ti tg a v e wr i tt e n n o t i c e a n dth e a l i e n wa s r e m o v ab l e . I NA § 240( b) ( 5) ( A ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( b) ( 5) ( A ) . A n in a b s e n tia r e m ova l or de rm a ybe r e s c i nde d i f

, w i thi n 180 da y s of

the or de r , the a l i e n m ove s t o r e ope n, d em o n strat i n g th atth e fai l u re t o ap p ear w as b ecau se o f ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m st an ces. IN A § 2 40 (b)( 5)(C ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(b)( 5)(C ). E xcept i on alci rc um st ance s i nc l ude c i r c um s t a nc e s be y ond the c ontr ol of the a l i e n, s uc h a s s e r i ous i l l ne s s of the a l i e n, ors e r i ous i l l ne s s orde a th of the a l i e n' s s pous e , c hi l d, orpa r e nt , butdo not i ncl ud e l es s c om pel l i ng ci rc um st ance s. IN A § 2 40 (e ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(e ). Incom pet entre pres ent at i on by coun se l can q ual i fyas an “ exce pt i on al ci rc um st ance . ” Saaki an v . I . N . S. , 2 5 2 F .3 d2 1 , 2 5 ( 1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . P ur s ua ntt o the F i f

th A m e ndm e ntD ue P r oc e s s C l aus e , a l i e ns e nj oythe r i ght to af u n d a m e n ta llyf

a irh e a r in g w ith e f

f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. D akane , 399 F .3 da t 1 2 7 3 . A p e titio n e rc la im in g in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e m u s t d e m o n s tr a te p r e ju d ic e . D akane , 399 F . 3d a t1274. “ P r e j udi c e e xi s t s w he n the pe r f orm a nc e of c ouns e l i s s o i na de qua t e tha tthe r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tytha tbutf orthe att orney' s e rr or, the ou t com e of the proceedi ng s w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” I d.4

B e c aus e C hahi n ha s aba ndone d hi s a r gum e nt , r a i s e d be f or e the I J , tha tthe stre ss of hi s m ov e w as the cause of hi m m i ss i ng hi s r em ov alhear i ng , and h e has fa i l ed t o sat i sf

y the prej ud i ce com po nentof hi s i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l claim , w e c o n clu d e th at th e B IA d idn o t errb y a ff irm in g th e I J’s d en ial o f C h ah in ’s m ot i on t o r e ope n a nd r e s c i nd the r e m ova l or de r . W e the r e f or e de nyhi s pe t i t i on on th is g r o u n d . C h ah i n al so arg u es th ath i s w i fe, w h o su ffers fro m d ep ressi o n an dan x i ety, w a s i l l , a nd tha ti l l ne s s w a s the c aus e of hi s f a i l ur e t o a tt e nd the he a r i ng, w hi c h, al th o u g h b ro u g h tup i n h i s p ro se m ot i on t o r e ope n, w a s notc ons i de r e d e i the rby th e I Jo rth e B I A in th e ird e n ia ls o f h is m o tio n . W e are ob l i gat ed t o i nq ui re i nt o subj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on w henever i tm ay b e la c k in g . Chac on- B ote r o v . U . S. A t t ' yG e n. , 4 2 7 F .3 d9 5 4 , 9 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .

“ Th e e x h au s t i o n r e q u i r e me n tap p l i c ab l e t o i mmi g r a t i o n c a s e s i s f o u n di n 8 U . S. C. § 1 25 2(d)(1), w hi ch prov i des that' [a ] courtm ayre vi ew a f i nal order of re m ov al on l y i f . . . the al i en has e xh aust ed al l adm i ni strat i ve re m edi es avai l abl e t o the al i en as of ri gh t . ’ ” Sundarv . I . N . S. , 328 F . 3d 1320, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . W e ha ve “in te rp r e te dth a t r e q u ir e m e n t to b e ju r is d ic tio n a l, s o w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to consi der c l ai m s thathave no tbeen rai se d b ef ore the B IA . ” I

d. A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to re vi ew C hahi n’ s c l ai m thathi s w i fe ’ s i l l ness w as an except i on alci rc um st anceWe D ENY C ha hin ’smotion

to supplement t

here c ord a s mo ot. 1 5 ju s tif y in g h is f

a ilu r e to a tte n dth e h e a r in g b e c au s e it w a s n o t c le a r lyr a is e db e lo w . A cc ordi ng l y, C hahi n’ s pet i t i on i s di sm i ss ed on thi s groun d. F or the abov e- st at ed r e a s o n s , w e d e n yth e p e titio n in p a rt, an dd is m is s it in p a rt. PETI TI O N D EN I ED I N PA R T, D I SM I SSED I N PA R T. 1