Muhammad Asaf v. Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4847
________________
MUHAMMAD ASAF,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(Agency No. A95-961-676)
Immigration Judge: Daniel Meisner
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
MAY 18, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, SMITH AND VANANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed : May 30, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Muhammad Asaf petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Asaf argues that he did not ask for voluntary departure. However, in his brief to the
BIA, Asaf stated that he “opted for voluntary departure only on the suggestion by the
Immigration Judge that he could file an application for reopening the proceedings within
90 days after the solemnization of the marriage.” C.A.R. at 12. Thus, regardless of his
2
motion to reopen. Asaf, a native of Pakistan, entered the United States in November 2000
as a non-immigrant visitor. In 2002, Asaf was charged as removable for overstaying his
admission period. Asaf conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). On August 25, 2004,
the IJ denied asylum, and Asaf withdrew his applications for withholding and relief under
CAT because he intended to adjust his status based on his planned marriage to a citizen.
The IJ granted Asaf voluntary departure. Asaf married a citizen on September 2, 2004,
and on November 8th, he filed a counseled motion to reopen. The IJ denied the motion to
reopen. Asaf appealed to the BIA and submitted additional evidence. The BIA dismissed
the appeal. Asaf, proceeding pro se, filed a timely petition for review.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to
reopen for an abuse of discretion with “broad deference” to the decision. Ezeagwuna v.
Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 409 (3d Cir. 2003). Under this standard, we will reverse the
BIA’s decision only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Sevoian v. Ashcroft,
290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). The BIA agreed with the IJ that Asaf failed to provide
clear and convincing evidence that his marriage was bona fide. It also concluded that
Asaf was ineligible for relief because he failed to depart after being granted voluntary
departure.1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). Because Asaf failed to depart and is ineligible for

-- 2 of 3 --

reasons for doing so, Asaf did request voluntary departure.
3
relief, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion to
reopen.
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --