2010 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 3-19-2010 

# F at ai Ol a dejo 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 . 08-3043

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_2010

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 2010 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 " F at ai Ol a dej o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1690. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1690NOT 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- 3043

___________ F A T A I O L A D E J O , a/k/ a Fai t h O l adej o, 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 P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 70 893 108 I m m i gr at i on J udge: A l ber t o J . R i efkohl

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

on M ar ch 19, 2010

___________ B efor e: FU E N T E S, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT ( Fi l ed M ar ch 19, 2010) P E R C UR I AM F a ith O lad e

jo p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew o f

a n o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ), w h ich d e n ied h is th ird m o tio n to re o p e n h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. W e w ill g ra n tW e not e thatO l adej o compl i ed w i t h t he pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of M att erof 1 L ozada , 19 I . & N . D ec. 637 ( B I A 1988) , i n es t abl i s hi ng hi s cl ai m thatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve. 2 th e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . O l adej o, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of N i ger i a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1989 w i t hout perm i s s i on. A boutfoury ear s l at er , he fi l ed an a s y l um cl ai m , bas ed on a f earof per s ecut i on beca us e of hi s conver s i on fr om I s l am t o C hr i s t i ani t y . O n February21, 2001, an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) found hi m r emovabl e as char ged and de ni ed r el i ef, butgr ant ed vol unt arydepartur e. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) di s m i s s ed hi s appea l on N ovember28, 2003. O l adej o fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen i n M ar ch 2005, cl ai m i ng nei t herhe norcouns el had r ece i ved the B I A ’ s 2003 deci s i on. O n M ay10, 2005, the B I A deni ed the mot i on as unt i m el y , di s count i ng t he al l egat i on t hatthe dec i s i on had notbeen r ece i ved. O l adej o, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed a s econd mot i on t o r eopen i n February2007, al l egi ng thatthe t i m e per i od forfi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen s houl d be equi t abl yt ol l ed bec aus e of the i neff ect i venes s of couns el . T he B I A deni ed the s econd mot i on on J une 25, 2007, not i ng 1 thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng w as unavai l abl e bec aus e O l adej o had fa i l ed t o exer ci s e due dil i gen ce, si nce h e had do ne n othi ng for abo ut tw o y ears aft er l earni ng that hi s fi rs t m ot i on t o r eopen ha d been de ni ed. O l adej o fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of that d e c isio n , w h ich th e B IA d e n ied o n N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 . P ro c e e d in g w ith n e w c o u n se l, O l adej o then fi l ed a thi r d m ot i on t o r eopen on February1, 2008. T he B I A deni ed theT h e B IA d e n ie d a m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e M a rc h d e c is io n o n M a y2 , 2 0 0 8 . 2 T hator deri s notati s s ue her e. T h e c h u rc h ’s p e titio n w a s a p p ro v e d o n J a n u a ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 . 3 3 th ird m o tio n to re o p e n o n M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , n o tin g th a t O lad e jo h a d g iv e n m o re sp e c if ic f a c ts re g a rd in g th e in e f

f e c tiv e n e ss o f

p rio r c o u n se l, bu t th a t h e h a d f a iled to a ttribu te h is delayt o thati neff

ect i ven ess. 2 O n M ar ch 21, 2008, O l adej o fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew and mot i on fors t ayof rem o v al i n the U n it ed S tat es C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e F ifth C ir cu it . T h at C o u rt tr ans ferr ed the ca s e t o t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , w hi ch eventual l yt r ans ferr ed the ca s e her e. T he dec i s i on t o denya mot i on t o r eopen i s w i t hi n t he B oar d’ s di s cr et i on. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( a) ; L u v. A s hcr oft , 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T he dea dl i ne for fi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen maybe equi t abl yt ol l ed byan i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el c laim . S e e B o rg e s v . G o n z a les , 4 0 2 F . 3 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). O lad e jo re lied o n h is fi r s tat t orney ’ s advi ce t o cont i nue pur s ui ng adj us t m entof s t atus thr ough hi s w i fe, w ho w a s a p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t. O lad e jo ’s c h u rc h a lso f

iled a p e tit io n f

o r S p e c ial Im m ig ra n tR e lig io u s W o rk e r o n h is b e h a lf. A lth o u g h O lad e jo ’s a tto rn e ye v e n tu a llyin f o rm e d h im 3 of the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s appea l i n 2005, and att empt ed t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs , the at t or neydi d notexpl ai n t o O l adej o t he cons equenc es of thatdeni al once the B I A deni ed th e m o tio n to re o p e n . O lad e jo c o n tin u e d to d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e h is a ttem p ts to a d ju st h is s ta tu s , u n a w a re th a t th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to re o p e n w o u ld p re c lu d e a d ju s tm e n t.

### I n hi s e m e rge nc y m ot i on t o s t ay

r e m ova l , whi c h we gr ant e d on Feb. 19, 2010, 4 

### Ol a de jo s t at e d for

the fi r s t t i m e that hi s wi fe ha d s inc e be c om e an Am e ri c an c i t i z e n, and ha d f i l e d an I - 13 0 P e t i t i ononhi s be ha l f. O l adej o onl ybeca m e aw ar e of the cons equenc es w hen he r ece i ved a l ett erfr om the ag en cyinf

o rm ing h im that h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r pe rm an en t r esid en ce b ase d o n h is w ife’s p e tit io n w a s d e n ied b e c a u se o f th e re m o v a l o rd e r a g a in st h im , at w h ich tim e h e a g a in ask ed the B o ard to reo p en . S ee G h ah rem an i v. G o n za les, 4 9 8 F . 3 d 9 9 3 , 9 9 9 (9 C ir . 4 t h 2 0 0 7 ) (l im it ati o n s p eriod toll ed u n ti l petit ion er d ef init ivelylearn s o f c o u n sel’s u n rea so n ab le pe rfo rm an ce ). W e hol d t hatt he B oar d err ed i n fi ndi ng thatO l adej o “fa i l [ed] t o att r i but e the del ay in p u rsu in g re o p e n in g to in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e .” A .R . 2 . In d e e d , itw a s b e c a u se h is at t or neyfai l ed t o expl ai n t he pr oces s t o hi m thathe cont i nued t o pur s ue adj us t m entof s t atus i n vai n, r athert han movi ng agai n t o r eopen. W e w i l l ther efor e gr antthe pet i t i on for r evi ew and r emand t o t he B I A forfur t herpr ocee di ngs . T he C l erk i s di r ect ed t o i s s ue the m andat e fort hw i t h.

4