Sela v. Gonzales
Docket: No. 06-2027-ag
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; November 6, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Muamet Sela, a Macedonian citizen, seeks judicial review of an April 11, 2006 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) February 9, 2006 dismissal of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Sela was ordered deported in absentia in February 2002, with his asylum and related applications denied at that time. The BIA's decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs if it lacks rational explanation or departs from established policies. In this case, the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Sela failed to meet the criteria for reopening his deportation order, which requires either filing within 180 days of the order with exceptional circumstances for his non-appearance or demonstrating lack of proper notice. Sela's claims regarding his prior attorney's actions did not excuse his late filing, as he did not submit the motion within the required timeframe. Additionally, the IJ noted that Sela had received proper notice of his hearing dates, undermining his claim of ineffective assistance. Sela's assertion of due diligence to toll the 180-day period was also insufficient, as he did not provide evidence for his four-year delay in filing the motion. Furthermore, the BIA appropriately dismissed his claim of "changed country conditions" related to eligibility for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), lacking clarity on how past eligibility equated to current changed conditions. Consequently, the BIA's affirmation of the IJ's dismissal of Sela’s motion to reopen was justified, leading to the denial of Sela's petition for review. The court vacated any stay of removal previously granted and denied any pending requests for oral argument. Additionally, the BIA's reliance on a repealed statute did not impact the validity of its decision.