Gordon v. Mukasey ( 2008 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0017n.06
Filed: January 8, 2008
06-3799
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS GORDON, )
)
Petitioner, )
) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
v. ) FROM THE BOARD OF
) IMMIGRATION APPEALS
MICHAEL MUKASEY, United States )
Attorney General, )
)
Respondent. )
Before: RYAN and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; COHN,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM. We have before us a petition for review of a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying petitioner Carlos Gordon’s motion to reopen his case
to permit consideration of his application for adjustment of status by the Department of
Homeland Security. The application would constitute Gordon’s second attempt to avoid
removal from the United States as an illegal alien through adjustment of status based on
marriage to an American citizen.
Gordon is a native of Jamaica who entered the United States as a non-immigrant
visitor in April 2000 and overstayed his visa, eventually marrying Nicole Johnson, a United
*
The Hon. Avern Cohn, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by
designation.
06-3799
Gordon v. Mukasey
States citizen, on February 14, 2001. The couple separated less than a year later, and
Gordon’s initial application for adjustment of status was denied in September 2001, as the
result of Johnson’s withdrawal of her I-130 Petition for Alien Relative. An immigration
judge ordered Gordon’s removal in August 2004, denying both withholding of removal and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The BIA affirmed that decision
on December 1, 2005.
Gordon claims that sometime shortly after the BIA’s decision came down, he and
Johnson reconciled and once again began living together as husband and wife. As a
result, Johnson filed a new I-130 petition on Gordon’s behalf in January 2006, a petition
that is apparently still pending resolution. Approximately one month later, Gordon filed a
motion before the BIA, seeking to reopen his case in order to apply for adjustment of status
pending the approval of Nicole’s I-130 visa petition.
The BIA denied the motion to reopen, finding both “the previous withdrawal by
[Johnson] of the original visa petition she filed [on the petitioner’s] behalf to be a significant
factor to be considered” and also “the timing of the [couple’s] reconciliation to be somewhat
suspect.” In its written decision in this matter, the Board furthermore explained:
[W]e find the evidence presented in support of [Gordon’s] motion to be
somewhat scant and limited, and insufficient to demonstrate the bona fides
of the marriage. It consists only of [an apartment] lease, the I-864, the G-
325 forms, and some pictures and cards. [The government] correctly noted
in its Opposition that the first two pages of the I-864 executed by [Johnson]
are missing . . . . In addition, while the motive for the alteration of the lease
is unclear, it does appear that the page numbers were changed. Examples
-2-
06-3799
Gordon v. Mukasey
of other types of evidence which could have been submitted to demonstrate
the bona fides of the marriage include evidence of a joint bank account to
show commingling of financial resources, joint utility bills, joint insurance
policies, or affidavits of third parties having knowledge of the bona fides of
the marital relationship. None of these was presented.
We have consistently recognized that “a motion to reopen should not be granted
unless the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the statutory requirements for the
underlying relief have been met.” Yousif v. INS, 794 F.2d 236, 241 (6th Cir. 1986).
Nevertheless, “even if the petitioner meets his burden of showing a prima facie case of
eligibility, the Board may, within its discretion, deny the motion.” Id. Because the decision
of the Board whether to grant or to deny a motion to reopen is thus within the sound
discretion of the BIA, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Haddad v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 515, 517
(6th Cir. 2006), we will not overturn it unless “the denial of [the] motion to reopen . . . was
made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or
rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race
or group.” Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Balani v. INS,
669 F.2d 1157, 1161 (6th Cir. 1982)).
There simply was no such deficiency in this case. The BIA explicitly determined that
Gordon failed to establish prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status based upon a
marriage to an American citizen, observing that Gordon’s application to reopen did not
contain any of the usual indications of a bona fide marriage relationship with Nicole
Johnson. Most of the exhibits that the petitioner did attach to his motion – the couple’s
-3-
06-3799
Gordon v. Mukasey
marriage license from 2001, pictures from the wedding ceremony, undated photographs
of the couple, and undated notes written by one or the other of the couple – are, moreover,
wholly irrelevant to a determination of whether the couple was truly living together as
husband and wife in 2006. The only evidence of that fact produced by the petitioner was
a copy of an apartment lease purportedly signed by Gordon and Johnson on December
15, 2005, exactly two weeks after the BIA’s decision upholding the immigration judge’s
decision denying Gordon withholding of removal and relief under the Convention. We
agree with the Board that the suspicious timing of the lease, as well as the absence of any
additional evidence – such as receipts for the payment of rent on the apartment, utility bills
in the name of both Gordon and Johnson, and similar indicia of a legitimate, ongoing
marriage – severely undercuts the possible finding of a prima facie case. Certainly, we
cannot say that the denial of the motion to reopen constituted an abuse of discretion under
the significantly deferential standard of Yousif.
“Prima facie evidence, according [to] the BIA, is evidence that ‘reveals a reasonable
likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.’” Alizoti v.
Gonzales, 477 F.3d 448, 452 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Matter of S– V–, 22 I&N Dec. 1306,
1308 (BIA 2000)). We conclude that the existence of two signatures on a form lease,
without more, is wholly inadequate to establish a prima facie case that a married couple,
separated for over four years, has resumed cohabitation under circumstances that would
establish a bona fide marriage under the immigration statutes. There is no basis upon
which to overturn the ruling of the BIA in this matter.
-4-
06-3799
Gordon v. Mukasey
For this reason, we DENY the petition for review.
-5-