U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS, BOSTON, MA AND BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS : CENSORSHIP & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND JUST RULE

 
Civil Appeal Remand Docket No.  09-1610 }    Ofume v. Govt. of America   Lead Case Docket  No. A097-446-370 Motion for Reconsideration Decision 9/22/11}
 
                U.S. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
           EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                     
__________________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   IN REMOVAL
                                 PROCEEDINGS
 
 
In the Matter of:
 
1.      OFUME, PHILLIP CHUKWUMA
 
2.      OFUME, MAUREEN NGOZI
 
3.     OFUME, KLEBER ODIMEGWU (Removed by ICE without Order of Judge/Court and  other removal immigration documents including host country, Nigeria’s Consulate receipt and release)
 
4.     OFUME, KEYNES ONYERO
 
5.     OFUME, ISABELLE IFEOMA
 
6.     OFUME LYNDA LAFAYETTE
 
7.     OFUME, BARNETT CHIDI
 
8.     OFUME, CHRISTIAN TOBECHUKWU
 
9.     OFUME, GLORIA CHIYEM
               APPLICANTS/DEFENDANTS(OFUME FAMILY
                      - FORMA  PAUPERIS & PRO SE)
 
                      V.
 
       GOVERNMENT OF AMERICA
                         RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
EMERGENCY APPLICANTS/DEFENDANTS' VERIFIED APPLICATION/ MEMORANDUM FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD’S  SEPTEMBER 22, 2011, DECISION BECAUSE OF 
 
1
 
Civil Appeal Remand Docket No.  09-1610 }    Ofume v. Govt. of America                              Lead Case Docket  No. A097-446-370 Motion for Reconsideration Decision 9/22/11}
 
 
CENSORSHIP AND OBSTRUCTION OF THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE BY MS. REBECCA NOGUERA AND OTHERS IN BOARD’S CLERK OFFICEE PROMPTING REASON THE BOARD’S CLERK DID NOT RECEIVE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNTIL APRIL 4, 2011 CONTRARY TO 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); section 240(c)(6)(B) of the INA; and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); actions deeply violate Applicants/Defendants’ Due Process Rights and Procedural Due Process et al pursuant to  1st  (Snyder v. Phelps: A Hard Case That Did Not Make Bad Law articled by Paul E. Salamanca ),  5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and also vested in Bill of Rights, Article 3 of the Torture Convention
________________________________________________________________________
 
Based on factual evidential  reason stated below, here comes Applicant/Defendants' further Application for Reconsideration seeking reversal  of this Honourable Board’s September 22, 2011 Decision  as path  to reconsider and reverse its Notice of Intended Decision dated December 30, 2010 which was also censored and served (03/04/2011) upon Applicants/Defendants  following Applicants/Defendants' protest/petition to BIA and others:  
 
A.        SUMMARIZED REASON, JURISDICTION AND ANALYSIS LACK OF FURTHER RECONSIDERATION OF BIA’S SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 AUTOMATICALLY OVERTURNS FOCUS OF OR ENDANGERS JUST LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 
 
 
1.                 In outright open statement, Applicants/Defendants state that the further obstructive and censorship actions in administrative conduct  of  Ms. Rebecca Noguera and Board’s Clerk Office brutally violate Applicants’ Due Process Rights and Procedural Due Process et al pursuant to  1st  (Snyder v. Phelps: A Hard Case That Did Not Make Bad Law articled by Paul E. Salamanca ),  5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and also vested in Bill of Rights; Article 3 of the Torture Convention and impede the smoothness of  8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); section 240(c)(6)(B) of the INA; and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B). Proof of the faultless of Applicants/Defendants are clearly stated and material evidence fully incorporated and entered below. 
 
2.                  Application for Reconsideration of  Board’s December 30, 2010 Decision and further  Request for Reconsideration of Board’s September 22, 2011 Decision must again show up before the United States Honourable Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) because of extensive Censorship and Obstruction of Material Evidence  by Ms. Rebecca Noguera and Board’s Clerk Office thus en route to the Honourable Members of the BIA . 
 
3.                 Again Respondent/Plaintiff Motion for Remand to The  Board of Immigration Appeal Docket No. 97-446-370 hits another obstruction and censorship of due process rights and procedural due process because of an eye-opener where the Respondent/ Plaintiff reminded the BIA of eminent oversight in their administrative power  to review the responsibility relationships (shared task to redo the  expired Biometric Test which is not part of the charge [212(a)(7) (A)(i)(I)] of the INA ) between Applicants/Defendants and USCIS Nebraska Service Center et al and other issues such as conduct of the Hon. Justice Matthew D’Angelo for blocking Applicants/Defendants from 
 
 
 
2
 
Civil Appeal Remand Docket No.  09-1610 }    Ofume v. Govt. of America                              Lead Case Docket  No. A097-446-370 Motion for Reconsideration Decision 9/22/11}
 
 
 
\speaking and defending their APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM containing FORM 1-589 and over 99 pages of Supplemental Statement of Defence and over one hundred (100) Exhibits supporting the heinous persecution and tortures which Applicants suffered oversea and how the same persecution and torture continued more than before without lapse in Nigeria and country to country to the present time (seehttp://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/74902). 
 
 
4.                  The present incident will convince Lord in Heaven and his Creation because Ms. Rebecca Noguera and Board’s Clerk Office censored Board’s September 22, 2011 Decision and they did not mail the decision to the Applicants/ Defendants. Ms. Rebecca Noguera apologized to the Applicants/Defendants and promised to forward Applicants/ Defendants’ Application for Reconsideration to the BIA’s  Clerk Office immediately. It is unspeakable that after Ms. Noguera’s apology, she continued to censor the decision, applicant’s application or motion for reconsideration, waiver of cost and score of other documents.
 
 
5.                   Under Applicants/Defendants’ day to day and week to week telephone calls to the BIA’s Clerk Office and under severe forms of censorship of  case information,  on September 25, 2011 one staff who appears to be scared to give case information to Applicants/ Defendants in a haste she/he (gender ID reserved) said “your motion was denied on September 22, 2011” and he/she rushed out of the phone. Immediately without copies of the BIA’s September 22, 2011 Decision,  Applicants/ defendants prepared and mailed Motion for Stay of Deportation/Removal/Exclusion  their Motion for Stay of Deportation/Removal/Exclusion pending Reconsideration, appeal or Motion to Reopen below (further copies of the Applicants’ Motion for Stay of Deportation / Removal/Exclusion are hereto attached and marked EXHIBIT   A ) .  
 
 
 
6.                    The handwritten  letter  and Certificate of Service of Applicants (attached as EXHIBITS B and C) requesting Board’s Clerk Office to mail the Decision was dated October 4, 2011 and mailed immediately to the BIA but censored and the stamps of the BIA (incorporated in the letter and marked EXHIBIT  D )  was  dated October 13, 2011. The mailing envelope (attached and marked EXHIBIT E) containing the Board September 22, 2011  Decision was postmarked October 14, 2011 and Applicants/Defendants received this enveloped on October 27, 2011. 
 
 
 
B.            UNARGUABLE FACT:  COMPUTATION OF STATUTORY TIMELINE PER FACTUAL EVIDENCE HISTORY AND APPLICANTS/DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); section 240(c)(6)(B) of the INA; and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B).
 
 
7.         Information issued by unanimous Board’s December 30, 2011 Decision  (attached as EXHIBIT F  ) was issued  but the person who received the phone in BIA’s Clerk  office in January 2011  refused to 
 
3
 
Civil Appeal Remand Docket No.  09-1610 }    Ofume v. Govt. of America                              Lead Case Docket  No. A097-446-370 Motion for Reconsideration Decision 9/22/11}
 
 
 
break clear information and swiftly exited the phone.  Applicants/Defendants spent over one month to find staff that was kind to give correct information on February 17, 2011.   February 2011 through present, income statement of the Applicants/Defendants shows that they have no money to pay  intra-city bus fare. Now and before to travel to Virginia to the BIA’s Office  is impossible. Certain staff in BIA’s Clerk office enjoyed this weakness and deeply punished Applicants. 
 
 
8.        On February 18, 2011 applicants mailed handwritten request (attached as EXHIBIT G  ) for the BIA’s December 20, 2010 Decision.
 
 
9.      Applicants continued another round of multiple phone calls to request staff of the BIA’s Clerk Office to send Board’s December 30, 2011 Decision. The stamp on Applicants’ handwritten request letter shows that the Board’s Clerk Office stamped Applicants’ handwritten request letter on February 24, 2011 (attached as EXHIBIT H  ) 
 
 
10.              Per Applicants’ telephone inquiries on BIA’s Clerk Office,  Ms. Rebecca Noguera  is in control and she held the request letter up to about March 11, 2011 and Applicants received the Board’s December 30, 2010 Decision on March 14, 2011. 
 
 
 11.             On March 18, 2011 Applicants/Defendants mailed out their Motion (application) for  Reconsideration by CERTIFIED MAIL with signature Return  Card (attached as EXHIBIT I ). Reason that BIA’s Clerk Office has severally denied receipt of Applicants’ documents, Applicants’ Motion (application) for  Reconsideration  ( attached as EXHIBIT J  ) was addressed in the name and care of Ms. Rebecca Noguera with instruction (COPY attached as EXHIBIT  K ) to submit Applicants’ Motion (application) for  Reconsideration  to  the Clerk of  the BIA. 
 
 
 
12.           Lead  Applicant telephoned Ms. Noguera several times  and when Applicant used unknown telephone Ms. Noguera emerged and confirmed  receipt but shocking to applicants, she said that she has not submitted  Applicants’  Motion (application) for  Reconsideration to the Clerk of the Board.  Applicant questioned the rationale behind her censorship and she apologized and promised to forward the Motion and other evidence attached to the Clerk of the BIA. 
 
 
 
13.        Late March 2011, Applicants were surprised  to receive letter from Ms. Noguera requesting for completed  Cost Waiver Form. What Applicants were able to construct  from this letter is that Ms. 
 
 
                                                           4
 
 
Civil Appeal Remand Docket No.  09-1610 }    Ofume v. Govt. of America                               Lead Case Docket  No. A097-446-370 Motion for Reconsideration Decision 9/22/11}
 
 
Noguero removed some of the documents which Applicants attached with their Motion before forwarding or submitting the package to the Clerk of the BIA.  On April 1, 2011 Applicants/Defendants mailed the Waiver and copies of the Motion and other  to Ms. Noguera by CERTIFIED MAIL with signature Return  Card (attached as EXHIBIT L ) and with instruction (EXHIBIT M ) requesting her to forward the documents to the BIA’s  Clerk.
 
 
14.   Applicants are surprised that Ms. Noguera did not include the procedural history stated in paragraphs 7 to 13 above in support of REASON THE BOARD’S CLERK DID NOT RECEIVE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNTIL APRIL 4, 2011 CONTRARY TO 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); section 240(c)(6)(B) of the INA; and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B).  
 
 
 
15.    Further argued that the procedural history of the Applicants  Motion for Reconsideration creates no fault on Applicants and the Honourable Board Members because the Board’s Clerk Office and Ms. Noguera misled the Board and failed to disclose detail of the process/procedural histories of this case (see paragraphs  7 to 14 above). Same test maybe used to review the position of the Board’s December 30, 2010 Decision. Censorship and obstruction of evidence in any case impede realization of just justice and victims are prone to earn unjust conviction and same which Applicants suffered under Judge D’Angelo’s decision (10/16/2007) when he (Judge D’Angelo) censored and severely blocked Defendants from defending their Application for Asylum.  
 
 
 
16.                 The persecution and physical and psychological tortures directed against Applicants /Defendants detoured and earned energized wave in 1990s and in year 2011 have gathered extraordinary momentum because of escalation of the crisis and endless entry of bad government in Nigeria; development of more and more clandestine moneyed movements against Applicants and pumping several billion dollars into the project/mission because of lead Applicants’ (Dr. & Mrs. Ofume) bid for the President of Nigeria 2007, 2011, 2015 and fear of further bid; over six (6) years of  Removal or Asylum proceedings which create no foundation to enable Applicants/defendants engage in self-defence via stability and reintegration into the United States of America; severe forms of sanction and embargo (applicants’ family of 9 – two parents and seven children, imposed frequent homelessness by bribing landlords, only one year of six years of their residence in the United States, Employment Authorization Document – EAD was issued and with heavy amount of dollars these opponents have,  applicants were followed from employment search to employment search to  bribe employers and dissuade them not to hire applicants/defendants); etc.      
 
 
 
C.                                           CONCLUSION/RELIEF 
 
5
 
Civil Appeal Remand Docket No.  09-1610 }    Ofume v. Govt. of America                              Lead Case Docket  No. A097-446-370 Motion for Reconsideration Decision 9/22/11}
 
 
Reason of the foregoing, Applicants/Defendants request this Board to reconsider its September 22, 2011 Decision and also intended action which aimed at denying their Appeal against IJ’s Decision and also most important as Respondent’s NO CONTEST has been settled in paragraph 1 line 3 of the Board’s September 22, 2011 Decision, the Hon. BIA may use this lawful opportunity within its judicial power to end self-made sadist or dictatorial Order of the IJ which eroded the security of several children and adults in this case (including scattered and destructive amour against  nuclear family) and over six years of severe and cruel  hardship and pains created by this case and  imposed on this family (Applicants) because the founding law or Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States is not designed as tool to destroy and abuse  humanity. For example, effective today (10/29/2011 at 4.30 p.m.) the income of this family is $0.00 including receipt of politicized swift COURT EVICTION NOTICE issued by the COUNTY OF PLYMOUTH SHERIFF, MA – attached as EXHIBIT N, no Employment Authorization Document, one child deported to Nigeria – 03/10/2009, one child poisoned at Arnone School, Brockton, MA  and police and school authority refused to arrest and charge the culprit, children harassed in school,  no single social services granted Applicants, all of which are designed as persecutory path to kill the entire family because of oil/gas politics in Nigeria. All the relief sought below be granted by merit or in the alternative under Humanitarian Ground.
 
                                 VERIFICATION
 
Respectfully verified, Signed and submitted under the pains and penalties of perjury this 29th   day of October  2011,
 
 
_______________________________
Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume & Co.
 P.O. Box 2416 Lynn, MA 01903
E-mail: limptintinc@gmail.com
 
 
                                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
I, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume,  Representative/Advocate for the Applicants (Ofume family) hereby certify that I have served  the foregoing Verified Emergency  EMERGENCY APPLICANTS/DEFENDANTS' VERIFIED APPLICATION/MEMORANDUM FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD’S  SEPTEMBER 22, 2011,  upon all parties and their agents, representatives and attorneys, by two or one of the following mail system, by hand delivery, certified mail, electronic mail delivery, publication,  mailing by first class/regular mail, postage prepaid to:
 
Director John Morton
 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
 500 12th St., SW
 Washington, D.C. 20536
 
District Counsel: Frederick J. McGrath, Esq
US Department of Homeland Security - Immigration & Customs Enforcement
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL
JFK Federal Building, Room 425
Government Center Boston, MA 02203
 
Director, Detention and Removal Office
US Department of Homeland Security - Immigration & Customs Enforcement
10 New England Executive Park
 Burlington, MA 01803  (781-359-7500)
                      6                                                                                                                                     
 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal Remand Docket No.  09-1610 }    Ofume v. Govt. of America                               Lead Case Docket  No. A097-446-370 Motion for Reconsideration Decision 9/22/11}
 
 
 
_____________________
 
 Phillip C. Ofume, Ph.D.  – Representative/Advocate for the
Applicants/Defendants
 
 
DATED:   October 29, 2011
 
 
Further copies to:
 
President Barack H. Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
 
 
Vice- President Joseph Biden,
Washington Office:
Eisenhower Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20501
 
Honourable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
US Secretary of Justice and Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
 
The Chief of Immigration Judge
The Assistant Chief of Immigration Judge
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500
FALLS CHURCH,
Virginia, USA 22041
 
Ms. Mary Patrice Brown, Acting Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530
 
His Excellency, High Commissioner
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)
 
                                                              7
 
Civil Appeal Remand Docket No.  09-1610 }    Ofume v. Govt. of America                               Lead Case Docket  No. A097-446-370 Motion for Reconsideration Decision 9/22/11}
 
Headquarters,
Geneva, Switzerland
 
 
His Excellency, High Commissioner
United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR)
 
Headquarters,
Geneva, Switzerland
 
The Clerk of the Board
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, VA 22041