Court Opinion

ID: 9453045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:00:55.106181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:54.002399
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60336        Document: 00516845947             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                     August 4, 2023
                                      No. 22-60336
                                     ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Sebastian Kassomi,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A079 003 925
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Elrod, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Sebastian Kassomi petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
   Appeals’ final order removing him from the United States to Tanzania.
   Because the BIA did not address the dispositive issue with respect to
   Kassomi’s request for a continuance to file a Form EOIR-42B application for
   cancellation of removal, we GRANT the petition in part, VACATE the
   BIA’s decision in part, and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60336     Document: 00516845947           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                    No. 22-60336

                                         I.
          Sebastian Kassomi, a native and citizen of Tanzania, was served with
   a notice to appear in 2007 alleging that he was an immigrant not in possession
   of valid entry documents and thus subject to removal. In January 2018,
   Kassomi filed an I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
   CAT protection. At an April 2018 preliminary hearing on Kassomi’s I-589
   application, the IJ scheduled Kassomi’s merits hearing for February 12, 2019
   and set a January 14, 2019 filing deadline for supporting documentation. The
   IJ also instructed Kassomi’s counsel, with Kassomi present, regarding the
   biometrics requirement for his I-589 application, stating: “make sure
   [Kassomi] is fingerprinted. Failure to do so[] is abandonment of the
   application.”
          In December 2018, as she was preparing for Kassomi’s merits hearing
   on his I-589 application, Kassomi’s counsel realized that Kassomi was
   potentially eligible for an additional form of relief—cancellation of removal—
   in light of the Supreme Court’s June 2018 opinion in Pereira v. Sessions, 138
   S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Accordingly, Kassomi’s counsel prepared a Form EOIR-
   42B application for cancellation of removal, which she intended to file along
   with the supporting documentation for Kassomi’s I-589 application prior to
   the January 14 deadline. However, when Congress was unable to pass an
   appropriations bill, the federal government—including the immigration
   courts—shut down from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019. Kassomi
   was therefore unable to make any filings by the January 14 deadline. On
   February 1, 2019—one week after the government had reopened—Kassomi
   attempted to file his 42B application as well as supporting documentation for
   his I-589 application but “was turned away” at the filing window by court
   personnel and instructed to “file [the documents] in court with the judge”
   on the day of the hearing. Kassomi was not fingerprinted between the April
   2018 preliminary hearing and his February 2019 merits hearing.

                                         2
Case: 22-60336         Document: 00516845947               Page: 3      Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                          No. 22-60336

           At Kassomi’s February 14, 2019 merits hearing on his I-589
   application, Kassomi’s counsel explained to the IJ the factual circumstances
   that prevented her from timely filing supporting documentation as well as the
   new 42B application and requested a brief continuance so that the filings
   could be properly entered and considered. 1 With respect to the requested
   continuance to file supporting documentation for Kassomi’s I-589
   application, the IJ denied the motion as moot because Kassomi had failed to
   comply with the biometrics requirement and had not demonstrated “good
   cause” for that failure. Thus, the IJ deemed Kassomi’s I-589 application
   abandoned. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c) (“Failure to . . . comply with the
   requirements to provide biometrics . . . constitutes abandonment of the
   application and the immigration judge may enter an appropriate order
   dismissing the application unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure
   was the result of good cause.”). As for the requested continuance on the 42B
   application, the IJ denied the motion on the basis that Kassomi’s counsel had
   six months between the June 2018 Pereira decision and the December 2018
   government shutdown in which she could have filed the 42B application but
   did not do so, and therefore the government shutdown did not constitute
   “good cause” for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (“The immigration
   judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown . . .”). With
   no remaining claims for relief, the IJ ordered Kassomi removed from the
   United States to Tanzania. 2

           _____________________
           1
            Kassomi’s counsel brought file-ready versions of the 42B application and
   supporting documents for the I-589 application to the hearing.
           2
             The IJ did permit Kassomi to file the supporting documentation for the I-589
   application and his 42B application “for purposes of any appeal . . . or motion to re-consider
   or anything else.”

                                                 3
Case: 22-60336     Document: 00516845947           Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                    No. 22-60336

          Kassomi appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. Before the BIA,
   Kassomi argued that the IJ’s refusal to consider his 42B application for
   cancellation of removal was “arbitrary and unfair” because the government
   shutdown had prevented him from timely filing the application and the
   government would not suffer prejudice if he were allowed to file out of time.
   As for the IJ’s decision to deem Kassomi’s I-589 abandoned due to his failure
   to obtain fingerprints, Kassomi argued that the IJ’s action was “arbitrary and
   unfairly prejudicial” because he had previously submitted his fingerprints to
   DHS in 2004 as part of his application for employment authorization and
   DHS could have simply “refreshed” his 2004 fingerprints for use with his
   I-589 application.
          Kassomi also filed a motion to remand with the BIA. In support of his
   motion to remand, he offered “additional evidence” showing that on
   February 28, 2019—two weeks after the merits hearing—Kassomi had
   “attempted to cure the [biometrics] problem by having his fingerprints
   taken” but “was turned away by the fingerprint processing location.”
          The BIA dismissed Kassomi’s appeal and denied his motion to
   remand. The BIA rejected Kassomi’s “argument that the IJ erred in denying
   his motion for a continuance since the continuance would have been for the
   purpose of developing issues that had become moot” due to his failure to
   complete the biometrics requirement. As to the biometrics, the BIA did not
   recognize that the IJ had distinguished between Kassomi’s pending I-589
   application and his unfiled 42B application. Rather, the BIA found that
   “[t]he record supports the IJ’s determination that all applications for relief
   were abandoned for failure to comply with the biometric checks” because
   there was not “any evidence that [Kassomi] timely completed the biometrics
   requirements” and Kassomi had “provided no good cause for failing to
   complete the required biometrics” despite having “been informed
   appropriately of that requirement.” And as to the motion to remand, the BIA

                                         4
Case: 22-60336        Document: 00516845947             Page: 5      Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                         No. 22-60336

   held that “remand is not warranted” because Kassomi’s claim that DHS
   could “refresh” his 2004 fingerprints was incorrect and the “new evidence”
   Kassomi submitted—photographs of him at an Application Support
   Center—was “not material or relevant” because the pictures “were taken
   on February 28, 2019, which is after the February 12, 2019, deadline the IJ
   clearly conveyed to [Kassomi] and his counsel” for obtaining fingerprints.
   Kassomi timely petitioned this Court for review of the BIA’s decision.
                                              II.
           The BIA’s determination to dismiss Kassomi’s applications as
   abandoned for failure to complete the biometrics requirement is reviewed for
   abuse of discretion. Singh v. Sessions, 751 F. App’x 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2018). 3
   “The BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a ‘reasoned
   explanation’ for its decision, ignores or fails to fully address important
   aspects of an individual’s claim, or fails to meaningfully consider relevant
   evidence.” Sylejmani v. Sessions, 729 F. App’x 317, 320 (5th Cir. 2018)
   (citations omitted). In addition to reviewing the BIA decision, this Court also
   reviews the IJ’s decision to the extent it influenced the BIA. Arulnanthy v.
   Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021).
                                              A.
           We first address Kassomi’s failure to timely complete the biometrics
   requirement in connection with his I-589 application. As Kassomi admits, the

           _____________________
           3
             Although Kassomi frames much of his appeal in terms of due process violations,
   his actual arguments are couched in terms of whether there was an abuse of discretion and
   are therefore reviewed as such. Cf. United States v. Lira, 262 F. App’x 653, 656 (5th Cir.
   2008); Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303, 307 n.4 (5th Cir. 2010). To the extent Kassomi
   intended to raise procedural due process arguments beyond the alleged errors presented to
   the BIA, those arguments are not properly before this Court because Kassomi did not
   exhaust them before the BIA either on direct appeal or through a motion for
   reconsideration. Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                               5
Case: 22-60336      Document: 00516845947          Page: 6   Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                    No. 22-60336

   IJ set a January 14, 2019 deadline for him to “have his fingerprints taken by
   DHS for biometric security check purposes.” And 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c) is
   clear that a I-589 applicant’s “[f]ailure to . . . comply with the requirements
   to provide biometrics . . . within the time allowed by the IJ’s order,
   constitutes abandonment of the application and the IJ may enter an
   appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant
   demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.” The IJ told
   Kassomi and his counsel as much, warning them on the record that “[f]ailure
   to [timely complete fingerprinting] is abandonment of the [I-589]
   application.” On appeal, Kassomi contends that he had “good cause” for his
   failure to comply with this biometrics requirement because (1) he mistakenly
   thought he had complied because he previously submitted his fingerprints to
   DHS in 2004 as part of his application for employment authorization, (2) in
   any event, DHS could have simply “refreshed” Kassomi’s 2004 fingerprints
   in its system for use with his I-589 application, and (3) Kassomi “was
   concerned that . . . he would not be able to be fingerprinted” because he did
   not have a valid ID. But the IJ and BIA considered these circumstances and
   determined that they did not constitute “good cause.” Nothing in those
   decisions constitutes an abuse of discretion.
          Our opinion in Martinez-Cortes v. Garland, No. 21-60322, 2022 WL
   1551896 (5th Cir. May 17, 2022), is instructive. There, we rejected the
   petitioner’s argument that the IJ and BIA had abused their discretion by
   finding that her failure to understand the applicable biometrics requirement
   did not constitute “good cause,” noting that she had “received notice and
   instructions regarding the biometrics requirement” and “was advised of the
   consequences for failing to comply.” Id. at 1. As in Martinez-Cortes, neither
   the IJ nor the BIA abused its discretion in finding that Kassomi’s mistaken
   belief that he had complied with the biometrics requirement by submitting
   fingerprints to DHS fifteen years earlier constituted “good cause” for

                                         6
Case: 22-60336        Document: 00516845947             Page: 7      Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                         No. 22-60336

   ignoring the IJ’s clear instruction to “make sure [Kassomi] is fingerprinted”
   prior to his merits hearing and warning that “[f]ailure to do so[] is
   abandonment of the application.” Nor is there any merit to Kassomi’s
   contention that DHS “could have refreshed [Kassomi’s 2004 fingerprints]
   in the system” for use with his I-589 application. The document that
   Kassomi relies upon in support of this argument expressly states that for
   individuals like Kassomi “who are filing applications for relief or protection
   from removal with EOIR,” the “existing process remains unchanged” and
   they “must continue to follow the instructions provided in EOIR
   proceedings.” As for Kassomi’s “concern” that he would not have been able
   to obtain fingerprints because he did not have a valid ID, such “concern”
   does not constitute “good cause” for failing to even attempt to complete
   biometrics until two weeks after the merits hearing.
           Because Kassomi did not demonstrate “good cause” for failing to
   comply with the biometrics requirement for his I-589 application, neither the
   IJ nor the BIA abused its discretion in dismissing the application as
   abandoned. Kassomi’s petition for review with respect to his I-589
   application is therefore DENIED. 4
                                              B.
           Having considered the impact of Kassomi’s failure to complete
   fingerprinting on his I-589 application, we turn to the BIA’s determination
   that this failure also rendered Kassomi’s yet-to-be-filed 42B application
   abandoned. Notably, the IJ did not dismiss Kassomi’s 42B application on this
   basis. Rather, the IJ rejected Kassomi’s 42B application as untimely because

           _____________________
           4
            Because we affirm the order dismissing Kassomi’s I-589 application for failure to
   timely complete biometrics, we do not address the parties’ arguments concerning
   Kassomi’s motion for a continuance to file documentation in support of that application.

                                               7
Case: 22-60336         Document: 00516845947                Page: 8        Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                            No. 22-60336

   he had not demonstrated “good cause” for a continuance after failing to
   submit the application in the six-month period between the Supreme Court’s
   Pereira decision in June 2018 and Kassomi’s January 2019 filing deadline.
   The BIA did not address this dispositive issue. 5
           To be sure, the BIA may affirm the IJ’s decision “on any basis
   supported by the record.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(v). But this was not a
   situation where the BIA identified its own basis for affirmance in the record
   and relied on that instead of the IJ’s reasoning. Rather, the BIA
   misunderstood the IJ’s reasoning, mistakenly believing that the IJ had held
   that “all applications for relief”—i.e., both the I-589 and the 42B—“were
   abandoned for failure to comply with the biometric checks” and finding that
   “[t]he record supports the Immigration Judge’s determination.” But the IJ
   did not hold that all of Kassomi’s applications for relief had been
   abandoned—only his I-589 application. And the BIA did not identify any
   basis in either the record or caselaw to support an independent determination
   that Kassomi’s failure to complete biometrics prior to his I-589 merits
           _____________________
           5
                There are many unanswered questions bearing on this issue which, in light of the
   BIA’s expertise, are more appropriately addressed by the BIA on remand in the first
   instance. See I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002) (encouraging courts of
   appeals to “giv[e] the BIA the opportunity to address the matter in the first instance in light
   of its own expertise”). For example, it is unclear whether there was a deadline by which
   Kassomi was required to file his Form EOIR-42B application. The instructions for a I-589
   application state that, absent “changed circumstances,” an individual “must submit an
   application for asylum within 1 year of arriving in the United States.” Form I-589
   Instructions, USCIS (Mar. 1, 2023) (emphasis in original), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/d
   efault/files/document/forms/i-589instr.pdf. But the instructions for a Form EOIR-42B
   application contain no apparent filing deadline. Form EOIR-42B Instructions, U.S. DEP’T
   OF JUSTICE (Feb. 2022), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/904291/download. And
   if there was no deadline, it is not clear whether the six-month period between the Pereira
   decision and Kassomi’s I-589 filing deadline is relevant to the timeliness of Kassomi’s 42B
   application. Beyond that, the BIA may have other questions to grapple with. After all,
   because the IJ “assume[d] for purposes of th[is] case . . . that [Kassomi] qualifies for 42B,”
   it is still unsettled whether Kassomi is eligible for cancellation of removal in the first place.

                                                  8
Case: 22-60336       Document: 00516845947            Page: 9      Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                       No. 22-60336

   hearing constituted an abandonment of his unfiled Form EOIR-42B
   application as well. In fact, both the USCIS Policy Manual and the USCIS
   application instructions state that a biometric services appointment will be
   scheduled after—not before—such an application is filed. 6
          Without any basis in the record upon which to find that Kassomi’s
   failure to complete biometrics prior to his I-589 merits hearing constituted an
   abandonment of his EOIR-42B application, the BIA abused its discretion. We
   therefore GRANT Kassomi’s petition for review with respect to his Form
   EOIR-42B application, VACATE that portion of the BIA’s order, and
   REMAND to the BIA to consider whether the IJ properly rejected
   Kassomi’s 42B application as untimely because he had not demonstrated
   “good cause” for a continuance after failing to submit the application in the
   six-month period between the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision in June 2018
   and Kassomi’s January 2019 filing deadline.
                                            III.
          The BIA’s denial of Kassomi’s motion to remand is also reviewed for
   abuse of discretion. Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). “A
   motion to [remand for new evidence] shall not be granted unless it appears to
   the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
   and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing . . . .”
   Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)). Here, the
   evidence Kassomi sought to introduce on remand—his attempt to have his
   fingerprints taken on February 28, 2019—was created two weeks after his
          _____________________
          6
               USCIS Policy Manual vol. 1, pt. C, ch. 2 (July 6, 2023),
   https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-c-chapter-2;        Instructions  for
   Submitting Certain Applications in Immigration Court and for Providing Biometric and
   Biographic Information to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services § B (Aug. 5, 2020),
   https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/Pre%20Order%20Instru
   ctions%20EOIR.pdf.

                                             9
Case: 22-60336     Document: 00516845947           Page: 10   Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                    No. 22-60336

   hearing. It therefore had no relevance to the issue of whether he had good
   cause for failing to satisfy the biometric requirement in the many months prior
   to the deadline. Accordingly, Kassomi fails to show that the BIA abused its
   discretion in denying his motion to remand, and his petition for review of that
   decision is therefore DENIED.
                                        ***
          For these reasons, we DENY the petition for review in part,
   GRANT the petition for review in part, VACATE the BIA’s decision and
   order in part, and REMAND this case to the BIA for further proceedings
   consistent with this opinion.

                                         10