Rehman v. Gonzales

Decision Date20 March 2006
Docket NumberNo. 05-2846.,05-2846.
Citation441 F.3d 506
PartiesHifzur REHMAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Guy Croteau (argued), Immigration Law Center, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.

Karen Lundgren, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the District Counsel, Chicago, IL, Anthony W. Norwood, Terri J. Scadron, Jennifer A. Levings, Erika

L. Ritt (argued), Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

In 1977 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was deposed as Prime Minister of Pakistan. General Zia ul-Haq took over in a coup. Hifzur Rehman was among Zia's subordinate officers. Rehman and his family had been, and remained, friends of the Bhutto family. In 1980 Rehman made remarks at a military meeting that the presiding officer construed as criticism of the Zia government; he was admonished to desist from politics while in military service. When Rehman made these unwelcome statements he was a second lieutenant; he retired in 2002 as a major. Having arrived in the United States on a tourist visa, Rehman sought asylum on the theory that Zia and his successors slowed his advancement through the ranks, kept him under surveillance, and posted him to remote and undesirable locations. Rehman acknowledged that he had not experienced overt persecution but contended that he was at greater risk once out of uniform. He contends that since his arrival in the United States his wife, who remains in Pakistan, has received telephonic threats. (The record does not show the substance of the threats.)

An immigration judge thought that these events fell well short of persecution entitling an alien to asylum. Rehman does not mount a serious challenge to the agency's decision on the merits. Many military officers (indeed, many employees in civilian life) think that their skills are under-appreciated and their careers impeded by jealous rivals or conniving superiors. That is not a form of "persecution." Benazir Bhutto, Zulfikar's daughter, was Prime Minister from shortly after Zia's death in 1988 until 1990, and again from 1993 to 1996. Yet Rehman's military career fared no better when she was in charge than when the Bhuttos' opponents held sway.

Rehman does not point to any evidence implying that friends of the Bhuttos are at risk in contemporary Pakistan. Benazir is in exile, and her husband served a term in prison following conviction on corruption charges, but their political supporters are at liberty. The current government of Pakistan is long removed from the coup that overthrew Zulfikar in 1977. Benazir's tenure ended when her party lost control of parliament, and the current head of government (Pervez Musharraf) has no apparent ax to grind concerning the Bhuttos' friends.

Instead of challenging the decision's substance, Rehman complains that the immigration judge denied him due process of law by curtailing the time allotted to the hearing and interrupting his lawyer's questioning. It is unclear, however, whether we may consider even these limited arguments. The immigration judge rendered his decision on February 2, 2004, and Rehman had 30 days to seek review by the Board of Immigration Appeals. On the 30th day, however, he filed a motion asking the immigration judge to reconsider. This motion was denied on March 23, and on April 16 Rehman filed two appeals: one from the initial decision of February 2, and the other from the order of March 23.

The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the first on February 1, 2005, as untimely, explaining that a motion to reconsider does not affect the time for appeal. While the second appeal was under advisement, Rehman asked the Board to reconsider that decision. On May 26, 2005, the Board entered a decision that (a) denied the motion to reconsider the decision of February 1, and (b) resolved adversely to Rehman, on the merits, his appeal from the immigration judge's decision of March 23. Rehman then filed a petition for judicial review, which is timely only with respect to the May 26 decision — for a motion asking the BIA to reconsider one of its decisions does not toll the time to seek judicial review, Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995), and the Board's disposition of February 1 therefore is unassailable.

Despite an order that this court issued before briefing informing counsel that the Board's order of May 26 is the sole administrative action now open to review, most of Rehman's brief proceeds as if this were a direct appeal from the immigration judge's initial decision on February 2, 2004. None of Rehman's arguments rests on any fact that came to light after that date or any new legal development. Yet motions to reconsider — whether made to an immigration judge or to the Board — are not replays of the main event. Reconsideration depends on something new, if not necessarily new factual developments (motions to reopen in immigration practice are strictly limited to such post-decision events, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(3)) then at least new arguments showing that the IJ or Board overlooked something important. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(2). Rehman does not have any new arguments; he is rehashing old ones.

Stone prevents us from deciding whether the Board's order of February 1, 2005, dismissing his direct appeal was a mistake. All we can consider is whether the standards for reconsideration have been met. Yet the lack of new argument or new evidence makes it all but impossible to say...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Rogers v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 1, 2006
    ...v. Mahoney, 247 F.3d 279, 282 (D.C.Cir.2001); Walker v. Abbott Laboratories, 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.2005); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir.2006). The more troubling aspect of the argument is its resort to the "ostrich-like tactic" of pretending that critical components......
  • Orienti v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 7, 2013
    ...actually detract from the presentation. See, e.g., Walker v. Abbott Laboratories, 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.2005); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508–09 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Brocksmith, 991 F.2d 1363, 1366 (7th Cir.1993). “[S]electivity [is] ... a virtue ....; ... concentrat......
  • Mason v. Carolyn W. Colvin,1 Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • October 29, 2014
    ...Abbott Laboratories, 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.2005)(decrying the tendency of some lawyers to pile on arguments); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Brocksmith, 991 F.2d 1363, 1366 (7th Cir. 1993)("A client is disserved when the most meritorious argu......
  • United States v. Walker
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 9, 2012
    ...particular evidence to be admitted, and a litigant contends that these rules violate the Constitution. See, e.g., Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir.2006); see also Portillo–Rendon v. Holder, 662 F.3d 815, 817 (7th Cir.2011) (collecting authority). In cases such as Melendez–Diaz......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • SSR 16-3P, superseding SSR 96-7p: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claimss (Effective March 28, 2016)
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook Content
    • May 4, 2020
    ...U.S. App. D.C. 417, 247 F.3d 279, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Walker v. Abbott Labs ., 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2005); Rehman v. Gonzales , 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2006). The more troubling aspect of the argument is its resort to the “ostrich-like tactic” of pretending that critical com......
  • SSR 96-7p: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • August 18, 2014
    ...Disability Advocate’s Handbook 10-276 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Walker v. Abbott Labs., 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2005); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2006). The more troubling aspect of the argument is its resort to the “ostrich-like tactic” of pretending that critical compo......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT