FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 14, 2005 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. 04- 13719 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 95- 220- 248 F E RN A N D O P IN Z O N , C L A U D I A P A T R I C I A A C E V E D O , e t a l., P e titio n e r s , 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

_________________________ ( June 14, 2005)

B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H 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 t i t i one r s F e rna ndo P i nz on ( “ P i nz on” ) , C l audi aP a tr i c i aA c e ve do, a nd A nd re s F . P i nzon (c ol l ec t i vel y “ P et i t i on er s” ), throu gh coun se l , pet i t i on for r evi ew o f th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’s ( “B I A ’s ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g th e irm o tio n to r e ope n a nd r e c ons i de rthe i re xc l us i on pr oc e e di ngs be c aus e the I m m i gr a t i on Judge (“ IJ ”) erroneou sl y r ef

used t o g rantas ylum re l i ef . W e AF F I RM . I . B AC KG RO UN D P et i t i on er s, nat i ves of C ol um bi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es i n N ov em ber 2000. O n 23 O c t obe r2001, P i nz on appl i e d f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al , addi ng hi s w i fe and chi l d as der i vat i ve appl i cant s. T he appl i ca t i on no t ed th a t th e P e titio n e r s s o u g h t a s y lu m b e c au s e th e yf e a r e dth a t if

th e yr e tu rn e dto C o lu m b ia , th e yw o u ldb e k ille d . A cc ordi ng t o the appl i ca t i on , P i nzon ’ s m other w orked for the U ni t ed S t at es em bass y i n C ol um bi a and up on her r et i re m ent , w i th m ore than 3 0 years of se rvi ce t o the em bass y, w as grant ed ci t i ze nshi p i n and m ov ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es . A ft er her m ov e, P i zon cl ai m s thathe and h i s f am i l y r ec ei ved threa t s f rom gu er i l l as that threa t ened t o k i l l them because of hi s m other’ s t i es t o the U ni t ed S t at es . In N ov em ber 200 0, P i nzon cl ai m s he f l ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es because thei r “ l i ves w er e i n [] grea tdang er . ” I n J a nua ry2002, P e t i t i one r s r e c e i ve d not i c e s t o appe a rf r om 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 ” ) c ha r gi ng the m w i th be i ng r e m ovabl e . O n 93

A pri l 20 02 , P et i t i on er s app eare d b ef ore an Im m i grat i on Judg e ( “ IJ ”) pro se w here the j udge i nf

orm e d the m of

the i rr i ghtt o c ouns e l and r e s c he dul e d af ol l ow - up hear i ng for 23 Jul y 200 2. A tthe Jul y heari ng , P et i t i on er s app eare d cl ai m i ng that they hi re d an att orney, bu the w as no ti n the courtroom . T he att orney had no tfi l ed an o tic e o f

ap p e a r a n c e , s o th e I Jin s tru c te dth e P e titio n e r s to m a k e c o n ta c t w ith the i ra tt orne ya nd t e l l hi m t o f i l e the not i c e . T he I Jthe n s e tthe a s y l um he a r i ng f or 1 1 Ju n e 2 0 0 3 . O n 11 June 2003, P e t i t i one r s a tt e nde d the he a r i ng w i th a n a tt orne ya nd c o n c e d e dr e m o v ab ility . D u r in g th e h e a r in g , P in z o n te s tif ie dth a t w h ile h e w a s in C ol um bi ahe pa rt i c i pa t e d i n apol i t i c a l or ga ni z a t i on, the S oc i a l I ndi ge nous A l l i ance , thatprot ec t ed the i nd i geno us m i no ri ty i deal s i n C ol um bi a. F urtherm ore, he t es t i fi ed thathe w as beat en by m en w ho i dent i fi ed them se l ves a s m em bers of a g u e r illag r o up th a t w a s lo o k in g f o rh is m o th e r , a n dth a t h e r e c e iv e daw r itte n d e a th th r e a t w h ile in th e U n ite dS ta te s . T he I Jde ni e d the pe t i t i on f ora s y lum a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l f

i ndi ng thatP i nzon “ fa i l ed t o p re se nt. . . cr edi bl e and suff i ci entevi dence t o est abl i sh that h e s u f f e r e dp a s t p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o litic a l o p in io n ,” a n dh e f a ile dto

“ es t abl i sh thathe has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . ” M oreover, the IJ m ad e an ad v erse cred i b i l i ty fi n d i n g , st at i n g th atP i n zo n w as n o tcred i b l e b ecau se4

he l ef tou tsi gn i fi cantdet ai l s f rom hi s a sy l um appl i ca t i on and h i s t es t i m on y w as in c o n s is te n t. P e titio n e r s ap p e a le dth e I J ’s d e n ia l to th e B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” ) . A lth o u g h th e B I A r e c e iv e dth e ap p e a l, th e P e titio n e r s a tto rn e yf a ile dto fi l e ano t i ce of appearance w i th the B IA . P et i t i on er s f i l ed thei r bri ef

i n the appeal l at e a l on g w i th a re qu es tfor e xt ensi on of t i m e bec ause thei r a tt orney w as hos pi t a l i z e d f

orc a nc e r . H ow e ve r , the B I A de ni e d the t i m e e xt e ns i on r e que s ta nd subsequent l y a ff

i rm ed the IJ ’ s dec i si on on 14 A pri l 20 04 no t i ng thatthe P et i t i on er s w e r e c ons i de r e d pr o s e s i nc e the i ra tt orne yf a i l e d t o s ubm i tthe not i c e of ap p e a r a n c e . O n 14 M a y2004, P e t i t i one r s f i l e d am ot i on t o r e ope n a nd/ orr e c ons i de rthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on. T he ya r gue d tha tne w e vi de nc e notc ons i de r e d bythe I Jr e qui r e d a r e e v a lu a tio n o f

th e I J ’s f

in d in g s . A m o n g o th e rth in g s , th e yc la im e dth a t g u e r illa a c t i vi tyi n C ol um bi aha d w or s e ne d a nd tha ta2001 U ni t e d S t a t e s D e pa rtm e ntof S t a t e r e port , s um m a r i z i ng gue r i l l aa c t i vi t i e s i n C ol um bi a , m a de i tunr e a s onabl e f or P et i t i on er s t o saf

el y r eturn t o C ol um bi a. T he B IA deni ed the m ot i on t o reopen a n d /o rr e c o n s id e ro n 8 Ju ly2 0 0 4 . P e titio n e r s n o w b r in g th is ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he P e t i t i one r s a r gue tha tthe I Ja nd the B I A f a i l e d t o c ons i de ra l l pe rt i ne nt e v i d e n c e . Th e ys t a t e th a tth e e v i d e n c e s h o u l dh a v e b e e n s u f f i c i e n tt o g r a n ta s y l u m,5

and thatthey w er e deni ed thei r c on st i tut i on alri gh tt o an att orney w hen the B IA c o n s id e r e dth e m p r o s e b e c au s e th e ira tto rn e yf a ile dto f ile an o tic e o f

ap p e a r a n c e . A . M ot i on t o R eopen/ R ec on si der W e rev i ew th e B IA ’ s d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o reo p en o r reco n si d er fo r an ab u se of di s c r e t i on. A s s a ’ a d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt orne yG e n. , 332 F . 3d 1321, 1340- 41 (11th C i r. 20 03 ), ce rt . deni ed, ___ U . S . ___1 25 S . C t . 38 (200 4); M ej i a R od ri gu ez v . R e n o , 1 7 8 F .3 d1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . Ju d ic ia l r e v ie w is lim ite dto de t e rm i ni ng “ w he the rthe r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve di s c r e t i on a nd w he the rthe m a tt e rof

e xe r c i s e ha s be e n a rbi tr a ryorc apr i c i ous . ” G a r c i a - M i rv. S m ith , 7 6 6 F .2 d1 4 7 8 , 1 4 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . T he B I A abus e s i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i t s de c i s i on “ pr ovi de s no r a t i ona l e xpl a na t i on, i ne xpl i c abl yde pa rt s f

r om e s t abl i s he d pol i c i e s , i s de voi d of a nyr e a s oni ng, or c ont a i ns onl ys um m a ryorc onc l us orys t a t e m e nt s . ” M i c ke vi c i ut e v. I N S , 327 F . 3d 11 59 , 11 62 (10th C i r. 20 03 ) ( qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). M ot i on s t o reopen o r r ec on si der ar e di sf avored, es peci al l y i n a depo rt at i on proceedi ng , “ w here , as a genera l m att er , e v e ryd e la yw o rk s to th e a d v a n ta g e o f th e d e p o rtab le a lie n w h o w is h e s m e r e lyto r e m a i n i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . ” I N S v. D ohe rty , 502 U . S . 314, 323, 112 S . C t . 719, 72 4-25 (199 2).6 1. M ot i on t o R eopen T he B IA has the autho ri ty t o g ranta m ot i on t o reopen i f there i s new evi dence thati s m at er i aland w as no tavai l abl e and coul d n othave been di sc ov er ed or pres ent ed atthe re m ov alhear i ng . S ee 8 C . F . R . §§ 10 03 . 2(c) (1) & 10 03 . 23 (b)( 3). T he m ov antm ustsubm i t“ af fi davi t s or other e vi dent i ary m a t e r i a l s . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) . H ow e ve r , the B I A ha s the di s c r e t i on t o de nythe m o tio n e v e n if

th e m o v in g p a rtyh a s m e t its p r im a - f a c ie b u r d e n to r e o p e n . 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( a ) . T he B I A ha s i ndi c a t e d tha ti t s pow e rt o r e ope n c a s e s s ua s pont e i s l i m i t e d t o e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd i s notm e a ntt o c ur e f i l i ng d e f e c ts o rc ir c u m v e n t th e r e g u la tio n s , w h e r e e n f o r c e m e n t m ig h t r e s u lt in h a r d s h ip . S e e I n r e J - J - , 2 1 I & N D e c . 9 7 6 , 9 8 4 ( B I A 1 9 9 7 ) . A lth o u g h d e c is io n s n o t to re op en un der § 10 03 . 2(a) ar e r evi ew ed for an abu se of di sc re t i on , § 1 00 3. 2(a) gi ves th e B I A d is c r e tio n to r e o p e n th e p r o c e e d in g s “a s it s e e s f it,” a n ds u c h d is c r e tio n is s o w id e th a t it is n o n - r e v ie w ab le . S e e A n in v . R e n o , 1 8 8 F .3 d1 2 7 3 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ). H ere, th e B IA d i dn o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n fai l i n g t o g ran tth e P et i t i o n ers’ m ot i on t o reopen. F i rs t , the P et i t i on er s f ai l ed t o sub m i tnew evi dence thatw as m at er i aland n otavai l abl e a tthe heari ng or subm i taf fi davi t s or other e vi dent i ary m a t e r i a l s . 8 C . F . R . §§ 1003. 2( c ) ( 1) , 1003. 23( b) ( 3) . S e c ond, the B I A ha s “ nonr e v ie w ab le d is c r e tio n ” in th is a r e a . S e e A n in , 1 8 8 F .3 da t 1 2 7 9 .7 2. M ot i on f

orR e c ons i de r a t i on U nd erthe re gu l at i on s, a m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on m ustspec i fy“ the errors of f a c torl a w i n the pr i or[ B I A ] de c i s i on. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 1) . W he n the B IA re consi ders on e of i t s pri or deci si on s, “ i tt akes i t se l f bac k i n t i m e and l oo ks at th e c as e a s th o u g h a d ec isio n h ad n ev erb ee n en tere d .” Z h ao v . U n it ed S tates D ep ’t o f Ju s tic e , 2 6 5 F .3 d8 3 , 9 0 ( 2 dC ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h u s , if it g r a n ts th e m o tio n , it r e e va l ua t e s i t s pr i orde c i s i on on the f a c tua l r e c or d a s i te xi s t e d a tthe t i m e the o r ig in a l d e c is io n w a s r e n d e r e d . I d . T he P et i t i on er s f

ai l ed t o speci fyany “ errors of fa ctor l aw ” i n the pri or B IA d e c is io n , b u t r ath e ro n lya r g u e dth a t th e e v id e n c e th e P e titio n e r s p r e s e n te ds h o u ld b e “s u f f ic ie n t” to g r a n t a s y lu m . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A s th e P e titio n e r s d id n o t s p e c if

ic a llya d d r e s s e rr o r s o f

f a c t o rla w , th e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in de ny i ng the P e t i t i one r s ’ m ot i on. B . R i gh tt o an A tt orney A l i e ns i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs m a ybe r e pr e s e nt e d, a tno e xpe ns e t o the g o v e rn m e n t, b yc o u n s e l o f th e a lie n ’s c h o o s in g w h o is au th o r iz e dto p r a c tic e in s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s . I mmi g r a t i o n & N a t i o n a l i tyA c t§ 2 4 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1229a ( b) ( 4) ( A ) . T he r e i s no S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l i n de port a t i on proceedi ng s, and al i ens onl y e nj oy the ri gh tt o eff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l pur 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 . M e j i aR odr i gue z , 178 F . 3d8

a t 1 1 4 6 . D u e p r o c e s s d o e s n o t au to m a tic a llym e a n ar ig h t to c o u n s e l. P r i c ha r d- C i r i z av. I N S , 978 F . 2d 219, 222 ( 5th C i r . 1992) . T he c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght u n d e rth e F if

th A m e n d m e n t D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e r e q u ir e s af u n d a m e n ta llyf

a ir hear i ng . D akane v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney G en. , 39 9 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 73 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (p er cu ri am ). T o est ab l i sh i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel , th e al i en m u st s h o w th a t c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e h a rm e dth e f

u n d a m e n ta l f

a irn e s s o f

th e h e a r in g . S e e i d. a t1273- 74; M e

j i aR odr i gue z , 178 F . 3d a t1146. W e a r e “o b lig a te dto in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u as p o n te w henever i tm aybe l ac ki ng . ” C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 2004) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on onl yove ra“ f i na l or de rof r e mo v a l , ” s o l o n g a s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s f

i l e dw i th i n 3 0 d a y s . 8 U . S. C. §§ 12 52 (a )( 1), (b)( 1). H e r e , th e P e titio n e r s a r g u e th a t th e yw e r e d e n ie dth e irc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to a n a tt orne yw hi l e appe a l i ng the m e r i t s of the i ra s y l um c l a i m be f

or e the B I A , a nd notc onc e rni ng the de ni a l of the m ot i on f

orr e ope n/r e c ons i de r , w hi c h i s a ti s s ue on appe a l a nd f

orw hi c h the P e t i t i one r s undi s put abl yha d c ouns e l . B e c aus e the P e titio n e r s d idn o t f

ile ap e titio n f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e B I A ’s f

ir s t o r d e r , w h ic h w o u ld have been du e on 1 4 M ay20 04 , 30 days af t erthe B IA ’ s f

i rs torder, w e l ac k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th i s o r d e r . Se e 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; s e e a l s o St o n e v . I N S, 51 4 U . S . 38 6, 39 4-95 , 11 5 S . C t . 15 37 , 15 43 -44 (19 95 ) ( concl ud i ng that9

“ depo rt at i on orders ar e t o b e r evi ew ed i n a t i m el y f as hi on af t eri ss uance, i rr e s pe c t i ve of

the l a t e rf

i l i ng of am ot i on t o r e ope n orr e c ons i de r , ” a nd tha t“ the f ilin g o f th e r e c o n s id e r a tio n m o tio n d o e s n o t to ll th e tim e to p e titio n f o rr e v ie w ” ) . I n a d d itio n , e v e n if

th e P e titio n e r s h a dw a n te dto a r g u e th a t th e yw e r e d e n ie dth e ir c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o a n a tt orne yba s e d on the r e pr e s e nt a t i on c onc e rni ng the m o tio n to r e o p e n /r e c o n s id e r , th e is s u e is ab a n d o n e db e c au s e it is n o t d is c u s s e din the P e t i t i one r s ’ i ni t i a l br i e f . S e e A l l i s on v. M c G ha n M e d. C orp. , 184 F . 3d 1300, 1 3 1 7 n .1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . I I I . CONCL US I ON P e t i t i one r s appe a l the B I A ’ s de ni a l of the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n the i ra s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l pe t i t i on. U pon ar e vi e w of the r e c or d a nd upon co n si d erat i o n o f th e P et i t i o n ers’ b ri ef, w e d i scern n o rev ersi b l e erro r. A cco rd i n g l y, w e A F F I R M the B I A ’ s de c i s i on a nd DE NY th e p e titio n .