06-04-1002 Borja-Archiabla v. Gonzales 2nd circuit brief · PDF file-vs-ALBERTO R. GONZALES,...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    04-Jun-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    212
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 06-04-1002 Borja-Archiabla v. Gonzales 2nd circuit brief · PDF file-vs-ALBERTO R. GONZALES,...

  • 04-6142-ag To Be Argued By:

    CAROLYN A. IKARI

    =========================================

    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

    Docket No. 04-6142-ag

    BERNABE JUSTO BORJA-ARICHABLA,

    Petitioner,

    -vs-

    ALBERTO R. GONZALES,

    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

    Respondent.

    ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

    ========================================

    BRIEF FOR ALBERTO R. GONZALES

    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

    ======================================== KEVIN J. OCONNOR United States Attorney District of Connecticut

    CAROLYN A. IKARI Assistant United States AttorneyWILLIAM J. NARDINIAssistant United States Attorney (of counsel)

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

    Statement of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

    Statement of Issues Presented for Review . . . . . . . . xiii

    Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

    Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

    Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

    A. Borjas Entry into the United States . . . . . . . . . 4

    B. Borjas Original Round of Removal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

    C. Borjas Motion To Reopen and Applicationfor Adjustment to Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

    D. Borjas Removal Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

    1. Legal Argument By Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

    2. Documentary Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

    3. Borjas Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

    E. The Immigraton Judges Decision . . . . . . . . . . 9

    F. The BIAs Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

    Summary of Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

  • ii

    Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

    I. The Board of Immigration Appeals Properly Determined That Borja Was Ineligible forAdjustment of Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

    A. Relevant Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

    B. Governing Law and Standard of Review . . . . 14

    1. Voluntary Departure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

    2. Motions To Reopen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

    3. Adjustment of Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

    4. Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

    C. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

    1. The Exceptional Circumstances Exception To the Voluntary DeparturePenalties Statute Has Been Repealed . . . . 20

    2. The Filing of a Motion To Reopen Does Not Automatically Toll the Voluntary Departure Period . . . . . . . . . . . 22

  • iii

    a. The Court Should Not Impose a TollingProvision Contrary to the StatutoryText and the BIAs ReasonableInterpretaton of That Text . . . . . . . . . . 23

    b. Even If Tolling Were Available, Petitioner Cannot Benefit From It in Light of His Failure To Request Relief From His Voluntary DepartureObligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

    II. Alternatively, the Immigration Judge Properly Rejected Borjas Applicaton for Adjustment of Status Because It Was Deficient on Its Face . . 33

    A. Relevant Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

    B. Governing Law and Standard of Review . . . . 33

    1. Labor-Based Adjustment of Status . . . . . . 33

    2. Scope of Review and Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

    C. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

    Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

    Certification per Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C)

    Addendum

  • iv

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES

    PURSUANT TO BLUE BOOK RULE 10.7, THE GOVERNMENTS CITATION OF

    CASES DOES NOT INCLUDE CERTIORARI DENIED DISPOSITIONS THAT ARE

    M ORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD .

    Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

    Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) . . . . . . 16

    Alimi v. Ashcroft, 391 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 33

    American Land Title Assn. v. Clarke, 968 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

    Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir.2005) . . . . . . . . . . 24, 26, 28

    Ballenilla-Gonzalez v. INS, 546 F.2d 515 (2d Cir. 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

    Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2006), reh. and reh. en banc denied, 458 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1874 (2007) . . . . 24, 25, 26

  • v

    Barrios v. Attorney General, 399 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

    Barroso v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

    Bocova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 257 (1st Cir.2005), amended on pet. for rehg., No. 02-4992(L), slip op. (2d Cir. May 24, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 33

    Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) . . . . . . . . 18, 30

    Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500 (4th Cir. 2006) . . . . 16, 22, 23, 25 26,

    Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

    Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

    Firstland International, Inc. v. U.S. INS, 377 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 35

    Hadayat v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

    Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

  • vi

    Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

    Iavorski v. U.S. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

    In re Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399 (BIA 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

    In re Zmijewska, 24 I. & N. Dec. 87 (BIA 2007), on remand from Zmijewska v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . 13, 21, 22, 29

    INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

    INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

    INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

    INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

    Iouri v. Ashcroft, No. 02-4992(L), __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 1512420 (2d Cir. May 24, 2007) . . . . . . . . . 13, 23, 27, 32, 33

    Joseph v. Landon, 679 F.2d 113 (7th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

  • vii

    Kanivets v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

    Khan v. Attorney General, 448 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 36

    Liberty Fund, Inc. v. Chao, 394 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . 35

    Lin v. United States Dept of Justice, 428 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

    Li Hua Lin v. United States Dept of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 39

    Liu v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 455 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2006)on remand In re Y-L-,

    24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (BIA 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

    Lopez-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 650 (7th Cir.2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

    Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

    Mardones v. McElroy, 197 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

    Matter of Perez Vargas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 829 (BIA 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

  • viii

    Matter of Shaar, 21 I. & N. Dec. 541 (BIA 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

    Naeem v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

    National Labor Relations Board v. Wyman-GordonCo., 394 U.S. 759 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

    Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

    Niam v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

    Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

    Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 316 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

    Shaar v. INS, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . 19, 24, 28

    Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

    Singh v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 22, 26

    Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32

  • ix

    Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176 (9th C