N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

SALEM HAB IB M ATAR ,

Pe t i tione r,

v. W ILLIAM P. B AR R , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-70522 Age n c y No. A070-818-836

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 10, 2020 **

B e fore : HAW KINS, GR AB E R , a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Sa le m Ha

bib M a ta r (“ M a tar ”) se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his m oti o n to r e ope n, whic h a lle g e d ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounsel an d c ha

n ge d c o untry c onditions in L e ba non. W e de ny the pe tition. 

# FIL ED
JUN 12 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iate for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m ously c onc l ud es t h i s cas e i s s ui tab l e f o r d eci s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).The B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny i n g Ma ta r’ s untim e ly m otion to

re ope n , whic h wa s file d fifte e n y e a rs a fte r the fina l orde r in his c a se . Although M a ta r
c onte nds he is e ntitle d t o e quita ble t olling ba se d o n ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of c ounse l, he ha s fa ile d to show he e xe rc i se d d ue dilige nc e in disc o v e ring his c ounse l’ s a lle g e d shortc om ings. C

ompare Ghahre mani v . Gonzale s , 498 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.7 (9th C ir. 2007) (holding t

ha t a pe t i tione r a c te d with d ue d i lige nc e whe re he “ d e m o nstra te d a ste a dfa st pursuit of his c a se ” de spite his “ c om ple te ignora

nc e ” of h is origina l la

wy e r’ s
e rrors), w ith Singh v . G onzale s , 491 F.3d 1090, 1096–97 (9th C ir. 2007) (holding tha t

a pe titione r ha d not a c te d with due dilige nc e whe re he took no a c tion for six m onths

“ to de finitive ly le a rn o f [his la wy e r’ s] fra ud a fte r he be c a m e suspic ious of the fra ud” ). In ad d i t i o n , t he B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t M a ta r ha d not

e sta blishe d pre

judic e from his c ounse l’ s al l eg ed ine ffe c tive n e s s. M a ta r fa ile d to de m onstra

te pla u sible grounds for re lie f on his unde rly i ng c la im s a nd doe s not point
to a ny e rror in t h e i m m i g ra tion judge ’ s origina l de c ision, w hic h found him not

c re d ible a nd sta

tutorily ine l i gible for a s y lum

. Rojas-Garc ia v . Ashc roft , 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th C i r. 2003). M a ta r a lso sought to re ope n unde r the e xc e ption for c h a nge d c i rc u m sta nc e s in the c o untry of na tiona lity

. 8 C .F.R

. § 1 003.2(c )(3)(ii). M a ta r ha s a he a vy burde n a

n d

m ust de m onstra

te tha t “ c irc um sta

nc e s ha ve c ha

nge d suffic ie ntly tha t a pe titione r who

2pre v iou s ly did not ha ve a le gitim a te c la im ” now doe s, Malty v . Ashc roft , 3 81 F.3d

942, 945 (9th C ir. 2004), a n d tha t his p re dic a m e nt i s “ a ppre c i a bly diffe re nt from

the da nge rs fa c e d by [his] f

el l o w c itiz e ns.” Singh v . IN S , 134 F.3d 962, 9 67 (9th C ir. 1998) (inte rna l q

uota tion m a rks om i tte d). T he B IA did not a buse its d is cr et i o n i n holding tha t the c u rre nt c onditions e vide nc e s ubm itte d with M a ta r’ s m o tion to re ope n is not qua lita

ti v el y d i ffe re nt from the pre vious e vide nc e a nd doe s n ot s how a n individua liz e d risk o f pe rse c ution, e spe c ia lly a fte r b e ing o ut of the c ountry for ove r two de c a d e s. Se e N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C i r. 2010). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

.

3