Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 173

Bouchikhi is a native and citizen of Algeria, an imam opposing the Algerian regime’s lack of democracy.
He entered the U.S. in 1997 on a student visa and later obtained special nonimmigrant religious worker status, expiring in December 2004.
DHS denied a renewal in May 2003, but a second petition was inadvertently granted in July 2003.
He applied for adjustment of status in October 2003 and received advance parole in October 2005; he traveled abroad January–February 2006 and returned.
DHS denied his adjustment in March 2007 and revoked his religious worker status; he sought asylum and withholding of removal, arguing for protection based on oppression of democracy advocates and threats from extremist groups.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether asylum timeliness hinges on the meaning of 'arrival'	Bouchikhi argues 'arrival' is ongoing as an arriving alien	HOLDER and the IJ/ BIA adopt ordinary meaning of arrival as a single event	The court agrees with the ordinary-meaning approach; last arrival occurred February 2006; ongoing arrival theory rejected.
Whether extraordinary circumstances and parole termination affect timeliness	Bouchikhi contends parole lasted until December 2008, making delay reasonable	IJ/BIA characterized period as facts; lack of jurisdiction over parole termination	Court lacks jurisdiction to review parole-termination facts and reasonableness timing; asylum untimeliness maintained.
Whether Gabbay was a permissible expert witness	Gabbay could testify as an expert on religious and social extremism in the Muslim world	IJ properly limited expert to Algeria-specific expertise; Gabbay not qualified as Algeria expert	No reversible error; IJ did not abuse discretion; Gabbay’s Algeria expertise as of April 2009 not sufficient for an expert on religious extremism.

Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (review of IJ findings when BIA adopts the IJ’s decision; jurisdictional framework)
Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence standard for factual determinations in removal proceedings)
Arif v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2007) (absence of filing deadline for withholding of removal; evidentiary considerations)
Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir. 2006) (deferential standard for asylum/withholding factual findings; substantial evidence review)
Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2006) (define 'arrival' for § 1208.4(a)(2)(ii); comparative interpretation used in asylum timeliness)