The Hon. Avern Cohn, United States Di s trict Judge f or the Ea stern District of Michig an, * sitti ngby designation. NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0249n .06 Fi led : M ay

8, 2008 06- 3799 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT CARLOS GO RDON, Pet itione r, v. MI CH AEL MUKAS EY , U nit ed St ates Atto rney General, Res pondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITION F ORR EVIE W FR OM THE BOAR D OF IM MI GRATION APP EALS

Before: RYAN and DA UG HTR EY , C ircui t J udg es; C OH N, D is tr ict J udg e. * PER CURIAM. W e have before us a pet ition for re v iew of a decision of

the Bo ard of Imm igration Appe als (BIA) den y ing petition er Carlos Gordon ’s motio n to reop en h is case to pe rmi t c onsi derati on of hi s a ppl ic ati on for adj ust ment of st atus by the Dep artment of Hom elan d Secu rity . Th e ap plication would constitu te Go rdon ’s secon d att em pt to av oid re mov al from the Uni ted States as an il leg al al ien throug h adj ust ment of st atus bas ed on marr iag e to an Amer ic an c it iz en.06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 2 - Gordon i s a nati v e of Jamai ca w ho entered the Unit ed St ates as a no n- immi g ra nt v is it or in Apri l 2000 and ov ersta y ed his v is a, ev entual ly m ar ry ing N ic ole Jo hnson , a U. S. ci ti z en, o n F ebr uar

y 14, 2001. The coupl e separated fiv e months lat er , and Gordon’ s i nit ial app lication for adjust me nt of statu s w as de nied in April 2001 , as the result of John son’s w ithdra w al of her I- 130 Pet ition fo r Alien Relativ e. An im migration jud ge ordered Gordon ’s remo v al in August 20 04, den y ing both wi thh olding of remo v al a n d relief

und er the U.N. Con v enti on Ag ain st Tortu re . The BIA aff ir med thatdec is ion on D ecember 1, 2005. Gordon c lai ms t hat s ometi me sho rt ly after the B IA’ s d eci si on c ame dow n, he and John son reco nciled a nd o nce a gain began liv ing together as h usba nd a nd wi fe. As a re sul t, Johns on fil ed a new I- 130 pet it ion on G ordon’ s b ehal f in J anuar y 2006, a peti ti on that is apparentl y sti ll pendi ng re sol uti on. Approx imat ely one month l ater , G ordon fil ed a ti mely moti on before the BIA , s eeki ng to re open hi s c ase in order to appl y for adj ust ment of stat us pendi ng the approv al of Ni col e’s I- 130 v is a pet it ion

. The BIA d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o re o p e n , fi n d i n g b o t h “ t h e p re v i o u s w i t h d ra w a l by [Jo hnson ] of the or ig ina l v is a pet it ion sh e f il ed [on the peti ti oner ’s ] beh alf to be a si g nific ant factor to be c onsi dered” and als o “t he ti ming of the [ coupl e’s ] reconc il iat ion to be s omew hat sus pect .” I n i ts w ri tten deci si on i n thi s matter , t he Boa rd furth er more ex pla ine d: [W ]e f in d the ev ide nce present ed i n s uppor t of [G ordon’ s] moti on to be somew hat s cantand li mite d, an d i nsuffici ent t o demonstrate the bona fides of the mar ri ag e. It consi st s o n ly of [an a par

tment] l ease, the I- 864, the G 325 forms , and some pictures and cards. [ The g ov er nment] cor re ctl y note d in it s Oppos it ion that the firs t two pag es of t he I- 864 execut ed by [J ohnso n]06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 3 - are m issing . . . . In additio n, w hile the mot iv e for the a lteratio n of the lea se is unc lea r, i t doe s a ppear that the p ag e numbers were c hang ed. Ex amples of other ty pes of ev ide nce w hic h coul d hav e been submi tted to de monstrate the b ona fides of the mar ri ag e i ncl ude ev ide nce of a joint bank ac countto sho w comm ingling of

f inan cial resources, joint utility bills, joint insuran ce pol ic ies , o r aff ida v it s o f third par ti es hav ing kn ow led g e of the bona fide s o f the mar it al re lat ion shi p. Non e of thes e was present ed. W e hav e c onsi ste ntl y

recog niz ed th at “ a moti on to reopen s houl d notbe g ra nted unl ess the peti ti oner makes a prim a facie show ing that the st atuto ry req uirements for t he und erly ing relief

h a ve b e e n me t.” You sif v. INS , 794 F.2d 23 6, 24 1 (6th Cir. 198 6). Nev erthel ess , “ ev en i f the pet it ion er meets hi s b urden o f

show ing a prim a facie ca se of eligibili ty, the Board may, w ithin its discretion , den y the m otion .” Id. Be caus e the dec is ion of the Boa rd w hether

to g ra nt or

to deny a mot ion to re open i s t hus w it hin the sound dis creti on of t he BI A, see8 C.F .R . § 1003.2( a) ; Haddad v . G onzale s , 437 F .3d 5 15, 5 17 (6 th C ir . 200 6) , we w il l not o v ertur n i t unl ess “ the d eni al of [the] moti on to reopen . . . was made w it hout a rati onal ex p lan ati on, i nex pli cabl y depar ted from est abl is hed pol ic ies , or rested o n an imp ermissible b asis such as invidious discrimina tion a gainst a particu lar race or group .” A l

la b a n i v . Gonzale s , 4 0 2 F.3 d 66 8 , 6 7 5 (6t h Cir. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Bala ni v. INS , 669 F.2d 11 57, 116 1 (6th Cir. 198 2)). In thi s cas e, the BIA deter mined that Gordon fail ed to es tabl is h prim a facie el ig ibi li ty for adj ust ment of st atus bas ed upon a marr iag e to an Amer ic an c it iz en. The Board not ed that Gordon’ s a ppl ic ati on to reopen did not cont ain anyof the usual indi cat ion s of a bona f ide m arriage relationsh ip w ith Nicole John son. Most of t he exhibits t hatt he pet itione r did06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 4 - attac h to his moti on – the c oupl e’s mar ri ag e l ic ense from 2001, pi ctu re s from the w eddi ng ceremony , und a te d p h o tog ra phs of the c oupl e, an d undat ed not es w ri tten by one or the other of the c oupl e – a re , moreov er , w hol ly i rrele v ant t o a d eter m in a tion of w hether the coupl e was tr uly

l iv ing as hus band an d w ife i n 2006. But , the petitio ner also subm itted for the BIA’s considerat ion two I-864 spon sorship forms a nd two G-325Aforms, one f iled by the pet itione r and o n e o f fe re d by N icole John son, e ach claimin g un der pot ent ially “sev ere pe naltie s . . . fo r know ingly and w illfu lly falsi fyi ng or

co nceal ing a mat er ial fact,” thatthe coupl e w ere husba nd and w ife and both li v ed at1658 Br

y n M aw r Roa d i n C lev ela nd, O hio

. The peti ti oner f urther proffered as an ex hib itto his moti on a copy of the Bry n Maw r apar tment leas e sig ned byGordon and by Johns on on Dec ember 15, 2005, ex act ly two w eeks after

the Board’s dec is ion uphol din g the i mmig ra ti on j udg e’s ru li ng deny ing Gordon w it hhol din g of re mov al and reli ef under the Con v enti on Ag ain st Tortu re . The BIA apparentl y

g av e l ittl e wei g ht t o the fact t hat t he c oupl e had si g ned an apa rtme nt lea se, ho w ever, com me nting tha t “w hile the m otive for t he a lteratio n of the lea se is unc lea r, i t doe s appear that the pag e numbers were c hang ed.” I n fact, the pag es of the lea se do s how

thatthe notat ion s “P ag e 1 of 5, ” Pag e 2 of 5, ” Pag e 3 of 5,” Pag e 4 o f 5,” and Page 5 of

5" atthe botto m of the respe ctiv e pages i nclud e a han dwr itten “5" i n ea ch ins tan c e . N e v e rt h e l e s s , o u r re v i e w i n d i c a t e s t h a tra t h e r

t h a n m a n i fe s t i n g s o me d e v iou s int ent, the h andw ri tten numerals appear to be merel y ov er w ri tes of infor mati on th at di d not06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 5 - copy as thorou ghly

as othe r printing on the pa ges. Indee d, th e f iv e pa ges of the lea se appear to cont ain the enti re ag re ement be tw e e n t h e l andl ord and tenant s a nd end appropr iat ely

w it h the si g natures of the par ti es to t he c ontract

. In s hor t, nothi ng i n the e x h i b i tg i v e s p a u s e a s t o t h e l e g i t i ma cy o f t h e d o c u me n ti t s e l f. In Matte r of Garcia , 16 I&N D ec. 653, 654 (B IA 1 978) , t he B o a rd r e -e x amined i ts pol icy reg ardin g the dis posi ti on of moti ons to reopen “ based u p o n as y et un adj udi cat ed v is a pet it ion s.” After

doi ng so , t he BI A det erm ined thati t woul d “ g enerall y reopen t he dep ortat ion proce edin gs in such case s unle ss cle ar in eligibility is appa rent in th e record .” Id. ( emphasi s a dded)

. The Board recog niz ed: It cl ear ly woul d notbe a n abus e of di sc re ti o n for the i mmig ra ti on j udg e to sum ma rily

den y a request for a cont inua nce o r a motio n to reo pen upo n his dete rm in a tion th at t he v is a pet it ion i s fr ivolo us or thatthe adj ust ment appl ic ati on woul d be deni ed on st a tu tory g ro unds or

i n the ex erci se of dis creti on notw it hst andi ng the approv al of the pet it ion

. Id. at 657 . How ever, the BIAex presse d its clear belief tha t discretion shou ld, ne v erthe less, “b e favo ra b l y

e x e rc i s e d w h e re a p r i ma fa c i e a p p ro v a b l e v i s a p e t i t i o n a n d a d j ust ment appl ic ati on hav e been submi tted in the c ourse of a depor tati on hear ing or upon a moti on to reop en. ” Id. R a t h e r t h a n a d h e re t o the p re c e p t s o f Matte r of Garcia , howev er, the BIA in this matter ev alu ated Gordon’ s mot io n t o reopen – fil ed dur ing the pendency of an I- 130 proceed ing – no t t o det er mine w hether the peti ti oner e stabli shed a prim a facie ca se of06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 6 - eli g ibi li ty for reli ef, but rathe r o n t h e m er it s o f the I- 130 pet it ion i tse lf. The Board thu s impos ed a n un du l y

o ne rou s b urde n up on G ordo n an d fai l ed t o ac c ord hi s e v i de nt iary exhibits the weight the y dese rv ed at a prelimin arystage of the de cision-ma king process. Gi v en th e fact that the B IA d eni ed th e moti on to reopen b ecaus e i t feltthata prim a facie cas e had not b een es tabl is hed, y et i mposed an ev ide nti ar y b u rd e n f a r heav ier

than that ordi na r i l y

req ui red for

s uc h a s ho w i ng , i t i s i mp os s i bl e to d et er mi ne w he th er t he B oard w ould choo se to de ny the mot ion if it decided thatGor d o n h ad a t least m et th e min ima l, ini ti al show ing req uired. Und er su ch ci rc umstan ces , a remand t o the BIA for fur ther cons ide ra ti on of the matter under the proper

l eg al sta ndard i s req uired. CO NC LU SION Gi v en th e BI A’ s d eci si on appl y ing a bu rd en of proof more appl ic abl e to a final deci si on on the req uestfor a ch ang e i n an ali en rela ti v e’s i mmig ra ti on s tatus tha n t o the “c o l o r a b le sh o win g” o f

e n t it le m e n tt o re li e f

a p p li c a b le a tt h e m o t io n t o re o p e n st a ge , we conclu de th at th e B IA ab used its discretion in de nying Gordon ’s motio n. W e the refore GRAN T the pe ti ti on for re v iew and RE MA ND thi s matter to the BIA for s uch further proceed ing s a s a re appropr iat e.06-3799

Gordon v. Muk

asey

- 7 - RY AN , C ircui t J udg e, di ss enti ng . After a c areful readi ng of Ma tter of Garci a, 16 I & N Dec. 653 (B IA 1 978) , I am s ati sfied that the “ col orabl e s how ing ” menti oned i n the agency’s opin ion an d relied up on b y my colleague s, is not a stat em entof a new stan dard for eligi bility

to seek reo pen ing of

a Boa rd o f

Imm igration decision . Rather, it is a mere dictum th at do es not c ontrol our dec is ion

. As I read Ga rcia, the BI A did no t dep art f rom th e prima facie sta nda rd as state d in § 10 0 3 .2 (c) , n o r ha s a n y su b se que n t de cis io n lo were d th e b u rd e n to a “c o lo ra b le sh o wing” in li eu of the pr ima facie sta ndard. Mo re ov er , th e B IA e njo y s b ro ad di sc re ti on to deny moti ons to reope n , e ven wh e re the appl ic ant mak es out a pr ima facie cas e. 8 C .F .R . § 1003.2( a) ; Yousi f v . I NS , 794 F .2d 2 36, 241 (6 th Ci r. 1986)

. I bel iev e w e deci ded t his i ss ue cor re ctl y the firs t t ime thi s c ase w as present ed to us , and I see no reason to re v is iti t. I respectfull y

di ss ent.