Case ID: f-appx_593/html/0695-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Drayton P V D BATEPOLA, aka Puwakpitiya Vithanalage Dharmakirthi Drayton Batepola, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71374.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 10, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 19, 2015.
    Todd Becraft, Law Office of Todd Be-craft, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Batepola’s untimely motion to reopen. The BIA reasonably determined that Batepola was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to pursue his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel against his two prior attorneys with due diligence, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-99 (9th Cir.2003), and failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), see Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.2000). The BIA also reasonably determined that Batepola’s second attorney performed competently and that Batepola did not suffer prejudice as a result of following her advice.

2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Batepola failed to introduce new material evidence to support reopening based on changed country conditions. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).

3. Batepola’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

PETITION DENIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.