Case Name: Muhammad ASAF, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-30
Citations: 182 F. App'x 87
Docket Number: No. 05-4847
Parties: Muhammad ASAF, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent.
Judges: Before SLOVITER, SMITH and VANANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 87–88

Head Matter:
Muhammad ASAF, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent.
No. 05-4847.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 18, 2006.
Filed May 30, 2006.
Muhammad Asaf, Parsipanny, NJ, pro se.
Richard M. Evans, Nancy E. Friedman, Paul Fiorino, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before SLOVITER, SMITH and VANANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Muhammad Asaf petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision denying his motion to reopen. Asaf, a native of Pakistan, entered the United States in November 2000 as a non-immigrant visitor. In 2002, Asaf was charged as removable for overstaying his admission period. Asaf conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). On August 25, 2004, the IJ denied asylum, and Asaf withdrew his applications for withholding and relief under CAT because he intended to adjust his status based on his planned marriage to a citizen. The IJ granted Asaf voluntary departure. Asaf married a citizen on September 2, 2004, and on November 8th, he filed a counseled motion to reopen. The IJ denied the motion to reopen. Asaf appealed to the BIA and submitted additional evidence. The BIA dismissed the appeal. Asaf, proceeding pro se, filed a timely petition for review.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion with "broad deference" to the decision. Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 409 (3d Cir.2003). Under this standard, we will reverse the BIA's decision only if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law." Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir.2002). The BIA agreed with the IJ that Asaf failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that his marriage was bona fide. It also concluded that Asaf was ineligible for relief because he failed to depart after being granted voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). Because Asaf failed to depart and is ineligible for relief, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen.
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
. Asaf argues that he did not ask for voluntary departure. However, in his brief to the BIA, Asaf stated that he "opted for voluntary departure only on the suggestion by the Immigration Judge that he could file an application for reopening the proceedings within 90 days after the solemnization of the marriage." C.A.R. at 12. Thus, regardless of his reasons for doing so, Asaf did request voluntary departure.