NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-2543 ___________ BRIDGET NICOLE WALTERS, a/k/a Bridget N. Walters; a/k/a Bridgette Nicole Walters; a/k/a Bridgitte Walters, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ___________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A201-242-287) Immigration Judge: Audra Behne ___________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 4, 2021 ___________ Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges. (Filed: September 23, 2021) ___________ AMENDED OPINION* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) affords various protections to victims of domestic abuse who are subject to removal. Bridget Walters, a native and citizen of Jamaica, is one such victim: she claims to have been sex- and labor-trafficked, and to have endured physical and emotional abuse from her now-estranged husband who is a lawful permanent resident. After she was ordered removed, Walters invoked VAWA as a basis to reopen her removal proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA denied her motion on several grounds, including untimeliness. She now petitions to challenge the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen. In reviewing her petition for an abuse of discretion, Liem v. Att’y Gen., 921 F.3d 388, 395 (3d Cir. 2019), we will deny it, but not on timeliness grounds. Because Walters qualifies as a battered spouse under VAWA, her otherwise untimely motion to reopen is timely as a matter of law. But the BIA’s additional bases for denying Walters’s motion to reopen were not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law,” Liem, 921 F.3d at 395. VAWA permits relief from removal only for victims who are of “good moral character.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(bb). Walters, however, has been convicted of at least twenty crimes spanning almost two decades. Those convictions, which undercut good moral character, prevent her from making a prima facie case for relief from removal – a prerequisite for any motion to reopen. Her criminal history also proves fatal to her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: even without any attorney error, Walters was not reasonably likely to secure VAWA-based relief from removal. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen. 2 I. Ordinarily, to be timely, a motion to reopen proceedings must be filed within ninety days of a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Walters filed her motion approximately six months after the BIA’s final order for her removal. Although that would normally be untimely, VAWA allows battered spouses one year to file motions to reopen if they satisfy three additional requirements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(I)–(IV). In finding her motion untimely, the BIA failed to assess whether Walters met those requirements, which she does satisfy. The first of those requirements examines the status of the VAWA self-petitioner. See id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(I). Eligible …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals