Source: https://openjurist.org/238/f3d/96
Timestamp: 2019-02-17 11:44:34
Document Index: 163372087

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 241', '§ 1251', '§ 242', '§ 1252', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 241', '§ 237', '§ 309', '§ 309', '§ 241', '§ 242', '§ 1252', '§ 240', '§ 1229', '§ 242', '§ 1252', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 3', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 242']

238 F3d 96 Sulay Jobe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | OpenJurist
238 F. 3d 96 - Sulay Jobe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
238 F3d 96 Sulay Jobe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
238 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2001)
SULAY JOBE, PETITIONER,
On February 14, 1996, the INS served Jobe with an order to show cause ("OSC"), which charged him with remaining in the United States longer than permitted, in violation of § 241(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(B) (1994).1 A hearing on the OSC was scheduled in Boston on May 22, 1996. The OSC specifically advised Jobe that, if he failed to appear for his hearing and his deportability were established, he would be deported in absentia. The OSC also advised Jobe that, if were deported in absentia, he could not have the order rescinded except that he "may file a motion to reopen the hearing within 180 days after the date of the [deportation] order if [the alien is] able to show that [his] failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances . . . ."2 In March or early April of 1996, Jobe moved to New York City to live with his friend, Sulayman Bah. Jobe does not write or speak English, and thus used Bah as an intermediary to retain attorney Earl S. David to represent him.
Nonetheless, Jobe failed to take any action until February 11, 1997, when, acting through new counsel, he moved to reopen and stay the deportation proceedings. Insofar as is here relevant, he argued that his failure to appear was the result of "exceptional circumstances" -i.e., ineffective assistance of counsel3 -- and that his deportation order thus should be rescinded. See INA § 242B(c)(3)(A), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A) (1994)4 (permitting the rescission of an in absentia deportation order "only . . . upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of deportation if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (f)(2) of this section)").5 On February 12, 1997, an IJ denied the motion as untimely, noting that it was brought well outside the 180-day window provided in the statute. On March 10, 1997, Jobe appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA. He argued that the IJ erred in denying his motion to reopen because his failure to file the motion within the 180-day statutory period was caused by the same ineffective assistance of counsel that caused him to miss his deportation hearing in the first instance. On December 15, 1998, the BIA dismissed Jobe's appeal because Jobe was "statutorily barred [by the 180-day statutory window] from rescinding the deportation order on the basis of exceptional circumstances."
Jobe then petitioned us to review the BIA's order. In his brief, Jobe argued that the BIA violated his due process rights by applying the 180-day statutory period in circumstances where the same ineffective assistance of counsel that caused him to miss his hearing also caused him to miss the deadline for filing his motion to reopen. A divided panel of this court granted the petition. The majority construed Jobe's brief as setting forth an argument that the 180-day time period prescribed in INA § 242B(c)(3)(A) is subject to equitable tolling, and, after noting that the issue has split the circuits,6 agreed with Jobe's argument on the merits. The majority also determined that Jobe's submissions were sufficient to warrant further inquiry, at the agency level, into whether the statute should be equitably tolled in the circumstances of this case. The dissent argued, inter alia, that the majority should not have decided whether the statute is subject to equitable tolling because, even if it were, Jobe had failed to establish possible entitlement to equitable relief. Thereafter, the INS sought and was granted rehearing en banc, and the panel opinion was withdrawn.
In its petition for rehearing en banc, the INS makes a powerful argument that INA § 242B(c)(3)(A) should be regarded as mandatory and jurisdictional and thus not subject to equitable tolling -an argument that is skillfully countered not only by our dissenting brothers, but also by the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, which filed a well argued amicus brief on behalf of itself and the following interested parties: the Political Asylum Immigration Representation Project; Greater Boston Legal Services; the International Institute of Boston; the Community Legal Services and Counseling Center; the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic; the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Project; the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. We appreciate the importance of the issue and the effort that has been expended in framing it for us in a most helpful way. But because Jobe has not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to equitable tolling or otherwise convinced us that application of INA § 242B(c)(3)(A)'s time limit violates his due process rights on the facts of this case, we dismiss the petition without deciding whether the equitable tolling doctrine may apply to this statutory provision.
Thus, even if we assume that "exceptional circumstances" caused Jobe to miss his hearing, and even if we credit the unsworn statement in Jobe's brief which suggests that Jobe did not actually ascertain that he had been ordered deported until December 1996, we are left with Bah's two uncontradicted sworn statements, put in the record by Jobe himself, which combine to establish that, in May or June of 1996, several months before the expiration of the 180-day time period set forth in INA § 242B(c)(3)(A), Jobe learned that an IJ had taken some action on his asylum application and was advised to consult an attorney immediately. Despite this knowledge and advice, Jobe took no action to protect his rights for more than half a year. In our view, this fact conclusively establishes that Jobe was insufficiently diligent in pursuing his asylum application to warrant the provision of any equitable relief that might be available under the statute. So too does this fact fatally undermine the premise of the as-applied due process argument Jobe presses in his appellate brief: that his counsel's ineffectiveness was the cause of his failure to file a timely motion to reopen his deportation proceedings and rescind the deportation order.
For the reasons stated, we do not decide whether the equitable tolling doctrine applies to INA § 242B(c)(3)(A) but rather dismiss Jobe's petition because he is not factually entitled to equitable tolling and because application of the statute in these circumstances does not deprive him of due process.
On September 30, 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-546 (1996), which redesignated former INA § 241 as § 237, transferred it to a different section of the United States Code, and otherwise brought significant changes to the country's immigration laws. But because petitioner was in deportation proceedings before April 1, 1997 (IIRIRA's "Title III-A effective date") and had his final order of deportation entered more than 30 days thereafter, he is subject only to the IIRIRA's so-called "transitional rules." See IIRIRA § 309(c)(1),(4) (as amended) ("transitional rules"). And under the transitional rules, the IIRIRA's permanent new rules do not apply unless a case meets one of the enumerated exceptions set forth in IIRIRA § 309(c)(4). All agree that none of these exceptions applies to this case. Thus, we evaluate Jobe's petition under the "old rules," such as INA § 241(a)(1)(B), even though they have since been repealed or redesignated.
Although INA § 242B(c)(3)(A), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A) (1994), has been repealed, Congress replaced the provision with one that is in all respects identical except that what formerly was called "deportation" is now referred to as "removal." See INA § 240(b)(5)(C)(i), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (b)(5)(C)(i).
Former INA § 242B(f)(2), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(f)(2), provided: "The term 'exceptional circumstances' refers to exceptional circumstances (such as serious illness of the alien or death of an immediate relative of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances) beyond the control of the alien."
Compare Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that INA § 242B(c)(3)(A) sets forth a "mandatory and jurisdictional" time bar) with Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that INA § 242B(c)(3)(A)'s time bar is not jurisdictional and thus subject to equitable tolling); cf. Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that the equitable tolling doctrine applies to the 90-day period provided in 8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(1)(2000) for filing motions to reopen based on "new facts").
For purposes of this analysis, we shall assume arguendo that Jobe has presented a preserved and sufficiently developed argument in favor of equitably tolling the running of the 180-day time period in INA § 242B(c)(3)(A).
I dissent for two reasons. First, I do not think there is a sufficient basis to find that Jobe had notice of the IJ decision to deport him in absentia well before the expiration of the 180-day time period set forth in INA § 242B(c)(3)(A). Second, even if Jobe received such notice, that fact alone does not establish that the running of the 180-day period for filing a motion to reopen should not be equitably tolled. The majority says Jobe was insufficiently diligent in pursuit of his rights. That diligence analysis requires consideration of other factors, particularly Jobe's alleged reliance on an attorney who may have represented him ineffectively. Without further fact-finding, we cannot know the circumstances surrounding Jobe's untimely motion to reopen, and so cannot fairly dispose of his case. Regrettably, the majority does the fact-finding here. That is not a proper appellate function.
The majority finds "that in May or June of 1996, several months before the expiration of the 180-day time period set forth in INA § 242B(c)(3)(A), Jobe learned that an IJ had taken some action on his asylum application and was advised to consult an attorney immediately. Despite this knowledge and advice, Jobe took no action to protect his rights for more than half a year." I do not think the majority's reasoning withstands scrutiny. It depends in large part upon the interpretation of two affidavits of a presumed friend of Jobe, Sulayman Bah. The first affidavit is dated 4/August/1997. There are no dates in the body of the affidavit. It states as follows: