PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-2509 ___________ ARFAN YASIN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A074-857-795) Immigration Judge: Eugene Pugliese _________________________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 22, 2021 Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, Circuit Judges, and NOREIKA*, District Judge (Opinion Filed: December 20, 2021) * The Honorable Maryellen Noreika, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation. Usman B. Ahmad 47-40 21st Street Penthouse A 10th Floor Long Island City, New York 11101 Counsel for Petitioner Jeffrey Bossert Clark Andrew N. O’Malley Sarai M. Aldana United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Arfan Yasin, a citizen and native of Pakistan, last en- tered the United States over two decades ago. In 2002, he be- came subject to a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He continued residing in the United States following the issuance of his final order of removal, and, in 2017, he and his United States citizen wife 2 welcomed a United States citizen daughter. Yasin’s daughter requires regular medical treatment to address gross develop- mental delays. Approximately seven months following his daughter’s birth, Yasin filed an I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Wid- ow(er), or Special Immigrant, requesting classification “as the abused spouse of a United States citizen” under the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”). His I-360 self-petition was approved over two years later, and in December 2019 – more than 17 years following his final order of removal – Yasin filed a motion to reopen sua sponte his removal proceedings on the ground that reopening was warranted to address his classification as an abused spouse under VAWA. The BIA denied his motion, refusing to grant Yasin a waiver of the 1- year limitations period under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III), as applicable to VAWA-based mo- tions to reopen. Because the BIA’s decision whether to waive § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III)’s limitations period is an exercise of discretion committed by statute to the Attorney General, we apply 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdiction-stripping provision and hold that our Court lacks jurisdiction to review Yasin’s motion to reopen. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we will deny the petition. 3 I. A. Yasin last entered the United States near Massena, New York on or about August 17, 2000. That same day, the Government served him with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him as removable from the United States pursuant to Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for being “an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.” A.R. 171. On August 30, 2000, the Government filed the NTA …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals