Zaim Dervisevic v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On

ALD-048 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3253
___________
ZAIM DERVISEVIC,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A097 752 790
Immigration Judge: Henry S. Dogin
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 19, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO AND SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : November 25, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Zaim Dervisevic has filed a petition for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which denied his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We construe the Government’s Motion for Summary Affirmance as a motion to

-- 1 of 3 --

A motion “[a]greed upon by all parties and jointly filed” is not subject to the time and1
numerical limitations for motions to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(iii).
2
summarily deny the petition for review, and so construed, we will grant the motion and
deny the petition for review.
Dervisevic is a citizen of Montenegro, who entered the United States in 2002 and
stayed beyond the time allowed by his visa. Dervisevic applied for asylum and related
relief, but an Immigration Judge denied relief on August 18, 2004. The BIA affirmed
without opinion on December 21, 2005.
Dervisevic filed a motion to reopen on January 8, 2009, based on a pending
Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition filed on his behalf by his wife, who had been granted
asylum. A motion to reopen must normally be filed within 90 days of a final order, 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); but Dervisevic argued that his motion should be construed as a
motion filed jointly with the Government, not subject to the 90-day limit, in light of his
efforts to contact the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to obtain their consent.1
The BIA “decline[d] to treat the motion as a joint motion in the absence of an affirmative
statement from the DHS that it agrees to reopening.” BIA decision at 1. The BIA thus
found the motion untimely and denied it. We agree with the BIA that the motion was not
“jointly filed,” and we thus hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion to reopen as untimely. Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 1994)
(discretionary decisions of BIA not disturbed unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or

-- 2 of 3 --

We decline to consider Dervisevic’s filing of August 30, 2009, which appears to be a2
series of exhibits without an accompanying motion or response. Dervisevic did not
respond to the Clerk’s noncompliance order entered November 2, 2009.
Dervisevic’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.3
3
contrary to law).
In affirmations attached to his stay motion, Dervisevic and his attorney both assert
that although Dervisevic’s wife and three sons all received political asylum in the United
States, the BIA erred by not considering these developments as “new facts” that would
permit reopening. All motions to reopen require a showing of “new facts,” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1); thus, simply having “new facts” does not make the motion timely.
Dervisevic does not otherwise address the issue of the untimeliness of his motion to
reopen in his filings in this Court, nor in the motion to reopen itself, A.R. 40-41.
Dervisevic does not base his motion on a change in country conditions, which could
excuse an untimely filing, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); nor does he refute the BIA’s
finding that his motion was not “jointly filed,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(iii). We can
discern no other applicable basis on which Dervisevic could claim that his motion was not
subject to time limitations.2
Because no substantial issue is raised by the petition for review, we will summarily
deny the petition.3

-- 3 of 3 --