NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0313n.06 F iled: May 7, 2007 No. 06-3109 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
SAL AM MOHAMMAD A BED AL -UJAI MY, P etitioner , v. AL BERTO R. GO NZ AL ES, Attorney Gene ral Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION FOR REVI EW OF A DECI SI ON OF THE B O A RD O F I M M I G RA T I ON A P P E A LS MEMORAN DUM OP IN ION

BEF ORE: NO RRIS, G ILM AN , a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s.
P ER C UR I AM. Pe tit ion e r S a lam Mo hamma d Abe d A l- Uj a imy , a n Ira qi c iti zen , a

pp e a ls from an or der of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) , that aff irmed an I mmigration J udg e’s de c isi on de nyinghis mot ion to re op e n re mov a l pr oc e e din g s. F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m. In Dec e mbe r 2 00 0, Pe tit ion e r e nte re d th e Un ite d St a te s w ith out a va lid vis a or pa ssp or t. After being rele ased from the I mmigration and Naturalization S ervic e’s c ustody , he beg an re siding in Southfield, Michigan. In Fe bruar y 2001, remova l pr ocee dings wer e instit uted ag ainst him, and he re tained attorne y

David Koe lsch to repr esent him. At his removal hearing in Fe bruar y 2002, he soug ht asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and p ro t ec t i on under the Convention Ag ainst Torture,No. 06-3109

Al-Ujaimy v . Gonzales A l

- U j ai m y v . G on z al es

06- 3109

-2- claiming that he fe are d perse cution for de serting the Iraqi army . The I mmigration J udg e conc luded that Petitioner was not a c redible w itness a nd denied his a

pplication for relief

. Petitioner appea led. I n May 2003, th e B I A r ev er s edth e a dv er s e c re d i b i l i ty d et erm i n at i o nan d

re m an d ed for

further pr oc e e din g s. On

June 3, 20 03 , th e I mmi g ra tio n Co ur t se nt n oti c e of Pe tit ion e r’ s new he ari ngdate to Koelsch. Petitioner, howe ver, did not appe ar at the No v em b er 25, 2003 he aring , and the I mmigration J udg e orde red him re moved in abstentia. Af t er h e failed to a

ppear , Koelsch se nt Petitioner a letter

dated Nove mber 25, 2003, outlining the steps that Koelsch ha d taken to conta ct Petitioner by

both phone and mail pr ior to the November hearing date. Petitioner contends that he did no t le arn of the re mov a l ord e r unt il 200 4 whe n the De pa rtme nt of Ho me land Se c ur ity de nie d h is application for

employ m en tau th o ri z at i o n . T h er ea ft er , o nNo v em b er 4 , 2 0 0 5 , P et i t i o n er

re t ained new counsel and filed a motion to reope n the remova l pr ocee dings, arguing that he never rec eived notice of the Nove mber 2003 he aring
. Th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e de termi ned that Pe tit ion e r r e c e ive d s uf fi c ie nt n oti c e be c a

us e his attorney was infor med of the he aring . Petitioner was responsible for keeping his attorney apprised of his c ur re nt a nd c or re c t ma ili nga dd

res s. P etition e r, ho we ve r, us e d v ari ou s a dd re sse s in bo th Michig an and Arizona during the relevant period of time. The Immigra tion J udg e also c oncluded that Petition er co u ld not reopen the proce eding s by claiming that he had r ece ived ineff ective assistance of counsel beca use he could not show the factual prerequisites set out in Matter of Lozada , 19 I . & N . Dec . 637, 639 (B I A 1988), had been m et. In October 2005, the BI A affirmed a nd adopted the I mmigration J udg e’s decision, stating that service on Petitioner’s “c ounsel of re cord c onstitut edNo. 06-3109

Al-Ujaimy v . Gonzales A l

- U j ai m y v . G on z al es

06- 3109

-3- notice” a nd his “failure to notify his attorney of hi s curr ent address does not amount to exceptional circ umstances f

or his failure to appea

r.” This court re views the BIA’s orde r deny ing Petitioner’ s motion t o reope n remova l proce eding s for a

n abuse of discretion. IN

S v . D oh e rty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). An alien may move to reope n at any

time if he did not rec eive notice of his remova l hear ing. Ho we v er, notice
ma ile d to the a lie n’ s c ouns e l of re c or d is su ff

ic ie nt. 8 U .S. C. § 12 29 (a ); se e Sc or te an u v . I NS , 339 F.3d 407, 412 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Here , n o t i ce o f t h e November 2003 hea ringwas sent to Koe lsch, which wa s statutorily

sufficie nt notice. Al te rn a tiv e ly , Pe tit ion e r a rgue s th a t K oe lsc h p ro vid e d in e ff ect ive a ssi sta

nc e by fa ili ngto notify him of the Novembe r 2003 hea ringand that amounted to a n exceptional circ umstance f or reope ning pur suant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (C). An in a bsentia orde r of r emoval may be re scinded if the alien c an show that the motion to reope n was filed w ithin 180 day s of the orde r of r emoval and that his failure to a

ppear was c aused by

except i onal circ umstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (5)( C). Even if we wer e to assume that the 180- day time limi t c ould be equitably tolled, Petiti oner c annot
me e t hi s b ur de n f

or e sta bli sh ingan in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im. To do so , Peti tio ne r m us t satisfy the conditions set forth in Loz a da, as we l l as show that he was pre judiced by

counsel’s failing s. Sako v. G onzales , 434 F.3d 857, 863 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Acc ordingto Lozada, Pe tit ion e r m us t sho w t he following : (1) the motion to reope n is supported by “an a ffidavit deta iling counse l’s failing s”; (2) c ounsel was infor med of the f

ailings; a nd (3) the motion shows “that disciplinary char g es have been f

iled with the appropr iate author ity .” Id. (c i t i n g Lozada , su pra ). Petitioner has
no t pr ov ide d a

n a ff ida vit in s up po rt

of his mot ion . W hi le a

do c ume nt e nti tle d “ B ar C omp la int

-No. 06-3109

Al-Ujaimy v . Gonzales A l

- U j ai m y v . G on z al es

06- 3109

-4- Attorney David Koe lsch” is included in the r ecor d, there is no evidenc e that this document wa s ever filed with the Michig an State B ar or that a copy

of it was sent to Koe lsch. Consequently , Petitioner failed to e stablish the fac tual predic ate for bring ing a motion to reope n on the bas i s o f i n eff ective assistance of counsel. That being the case , we need not re ach the question of whethe r Petitioner has demonstrated pr ejudice ba sed upon the a ctions or inactions of c ounsel. Th e or de r o f t

he B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls i s aff irm ed
.