NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0113n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 11, 2009 No. 07-4242 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
N IG E L P E T E R

C A RR O LL, Petitioner,
v.
ERI C H
. HOL DER, J R., U nited State s At torney Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW FROM A F I NA LORDE R O F TH E BO ARD O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Be fore : RYAN, SI L ER, and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es. SILE R , Circuit J udg e. Nig el Carr oll petitions for r eview o f an o rd er of the B oard of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls ( “ B I A” ) a ff ir min g the I mm ig ra

tio n Jud g e ’s (“ I J”) de nia l of his mot ion

to
rec onsider. F or the followingrea sons, we DEN Y the petition. BACK GR OUND Carroll, a B ritish national, moved to the United States in 1968. I n 1996, he wa s convicted of for g ery

and re ceivingstolen proper ty in violation of O HI O R EV . C ODE § § 2913.31(A) a nd 2913.51(A). I n 1998, he was convicted of theft in violation of O HI O R EV . C ODE § 2913.02. I n 1998, I mmigration & C ustoms Enforc ement ("I CE") issued a Notice to Appea r to Carroll, alleg ing that he
was s u b j ect to depor

tation pursuant to Section 237(a) (2)( A)(ii), Immigration & Nationality Act (“I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (A)( ii), as an a lien convicted of two crimes involving mo r a l tur pitude.No. 07-4242

CARROL Lv. HOL DER

- 2 - I n 2000, Ca rr o l l h i red a

n attorney

to repre sent him in the removal proc eeding s. Carroll’s at t o rn ey b ega nwo rko nt h e c as e, b u ti n2 0 0 1 s h e c l o s ed h er p ri v at e p ra ct i ce an d j o i n ed th e C uy ah o ga County Public Defe nder' s Offic e in Ohio. She cl ai m s t h at s he notified a ll her clients to find new counsel, but did not rec eive a response from C arr oll. I n 2002, Carroll “lost contac t” with his attorney and attempted to c ontact her throug h a ser ies of phone calls t o her previous telephone numbe r over the next y ear , but w as unsucce ssful in his attempts. A J une 2003 letter fr om Carroll to his attorney
was re turned a s “undeliver able.” Th e re a ft e r, Carr oll c la ims tha t he “ a ssume d th e matte r w a s se ttl e d” and did no t atte mpt

to h i re an o t h er

at t o rn ey o r i n qu i re i n t o t h e s t at u s o f h i s ca s e. C o n s equ en t l y , h e m i s s eds ev er al h ea ri n gs
conce rning his removal proc eeding s. I n 2004, when he failed t o attend a sc heduled video teleconf ere nce he aring , the I J deeme d Carroll’s c ase a bandoned a

nd enter ed an in absentia remova l order
. I n 2006, Carroll was arr ested and detained by immigration a uthorities. A fter his a

rre st, he hired new counsel, J ames Chin, to represe nt him. On J uly 25, 2006 Chin made a motion to reopen Carroll’s re moval proce eding s and re scind the in absentia remova l order. The I J denied Carroll’s motion to reope n the proceeding s. On appe al, the B I A re manded the
c a se to pe rm it the I J to furt he r co ns ide r the mot ion to re op e n the re mov a l pro c e e din g s and a dd re ss the re asons for his de cision. I n Marc h 2007, the I J revisited the c ase a nd denied Car

roll’s motion to reopen. The I J denied Carroll’s motion to recons i d er i n May 2007. On J une 15, 2007, Chin discovere d that the supplemental memora

ndum and attac hed exhibits that he filed on Aug ust 18, 2006 with the moti onNo. 07-4242

CARROL Lv. HOL DER

- 3 - to r e op e n r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s w e re no t in the I J’s f ile . In Augus t 20 07 , Ch in f ile d a n a pp e llate brief w ith the BIA, ar g uing that the decisions of the I J in October 2006 and Mar ch 2007 and Ma y 2007 wer e not base d on the complete r ecor d of the c ase beca u s e t h e record did not conta in the supplemental memora

ndum. Th e BI A h eld t hat the I J ’s fa ilure to revie w the supplementa l memorandum of law and
e xhibi ts w a s h arm le ss e rr or and a ff ir me d the de nia l of Carr oll ’s mot ion to r e c on sid e r t

he mot ion to
re op e n o n th e ba sis that he fa ile d to e xer c ise du e dil ig e nc e in p ur su inghis ri g hts
. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW A dec ision to deny

a motion for re consideration is re viewed f or abuse of discre tion. Ss waj je
v . A sh c ro ft , 3 50 F .3 d 528 , 532 (6 th Cir . 200 3)
. Th is co ur t r e vie ws “ the B I A’ s d e nia l of a mot ion to reope n under a

n abuse- of-discr etion standard.” Barry v. Muk asey , 524 F.3d 721, 724 ( 6th Cir. 2008) ( ci t i n g Haddad v. Gonzale

s , 4 3 7 F
. 3 d 5 1 5 , 5 1 7 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) )
. “ T h e Su p r e me Co urt h a s made clea r that re openingis discretionary with the BIA and that the B I A re tains broad discr etion to gr ant or deny such motions.” Alizoti v. Gonzales , 477 F.3d 448, 451 ( 6th Cir. 2007) ( c it ing I

. N.S. v

. Do he rty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)). AN AL YSI S I n g ener al, a motion to reope n shall be filed within 90 day s of the date o f entry of a f inal administrative orde r. 8 U.S.C. §1229a( c) (7 )( C ). An in absentia remova l order ma y be re scinded if a motion to reopen i s fi l ed withi n 180 day s of the entr y of the fina l administrative order , if the
a lien de mon str a te s th a t th e fa ilure to a pp e ar w a s b e c a

us e of e xce pti on a l c ir c ums tanc e s. 8 U .S. C. §1229a(b) (5)( C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4) (ii).No. 07-4242

CARROL Lv. HOL DER

- 4 - The motion to reopen w as filed a lmost t wo y ear s after the in absentia order was e ntere d and, there fore , was we ll past the 90-day g ener al t i m e limit and the 180-day exceptional circ umstances time limi t. Ho we v er, Car roll contends that the B I A should have c onsidered the motion to reopen as timely under an equitable tolling theory . Fur ther, Car roll argues that the I J should have g rante d his mot ion t o re c on sid e r t he mot ion

to r e op e n b e c a

us e the fi rs t ti me the I J hea rd his mot ion

to reope n, a supplementa l memorandum with evidenc e of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel was not
a tta c he d. We a g re e wi th t he B I A that the fa ilure of

the I J to r e vie w t

he me mor and

um w a s h arm le ss
err or. I. Equit abl e Tol ling Carr oll c on c e de s th a t hi s mo tio n to re op e n w a s f ile d p a st the 18 0- da

y tim e lim it fo r f

ili nghis motion, but contends that the time lim it should have bee n eq u i t ably tolled. “‘Strictly

define d, equitable tolling is [t] he doctr ine that the statute of limitations w ill not bar a claim if the plaintiff, despite di lige nt eff

orts, did not discover the injury until after the limitations period had e x pired.’” Ba rry , 524 F.3d at 724 ( quoting Tapia-Martinez v. Go n z ales , 482 F.3d 417, 422 ( 6th Cir. 2007)). We have a

pplied the doctrine of equitable tolling to time- barr ed motions t o reope n. See, e .g., Tapia-Martinez , 4 82 F .3 d at 422
. Se ve ra l fa c tor s ar e c on sid e re d w he n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t o a pp ly the doctrine of equitable tolling. “The fac tors are : (1) lac k of ac tual notice of f iling re quirement; (2) lack of constructive k n o wl ed ge of f iling re quirement; (3) diligenc e in pursuingone' s rig hts; (4) absenc e of pr ejudice to the defe ndant; and (5) a plaintiff' s rea sonablene ss in remainingignor ant of the notice r equire ment.” An dr e ws v . O rr , 851 F.2d 146, 151 ( 6th Cir. 1988).No. 07-4242

CARROL Lv. HOL DER

- 5 - Whether Carr oll ex erc ised due dilig ence in purs u i n g his rights duringthe time period he wishes to be tolled is of utmost conce rn. Se e Ba rry , 524 F.3d at 724-25. Fur ther, “ ‘[d] ue dilige nce require s an alien to prove that the delay in filing the motion to reope n was due to an [] exceptional circ umstance be y ond his control.’” Id. at 724 ( quoting Tapi a-Martinez , 482 F.3d at 423) (citation omitted). Carr oll c la ims that he “l os t con ta c t” wi th h is atto rn e y so me tim e in e arl y

20 02 . Ca rr oll ’s la st attempt to c ontact his attorney was in June 2003 throug h a letter, which w as returned “undeliver able.” Duringthe two-y ear period from 2004 to 2006 he wishes to have e quitably tolled, he took no ac tion to pursue his leg al rig hts. Contrary to Carroll’s asse rtion, the fac ts sugg est that he k n ew his ca se wa s not settled be c a us e his June 20 03 le tte r t o h is atto rn e y e xpre sse d h is f

e ar t hat an “ I NS wa rr ant” wa s out f

or him
. Carr oll ’s la c k o f d

ue dil ig e nc e pr e c lud e s h im f ro m be inge nti tle d to an e qu ita ble tol lin g of

the tim e limit to file a motion to reopen. II. Inef fective Assistance of Cou nsel Carr oll argue s th a t th e B I A e rr e d in a ff ir min g the de nia l of

his mot ion

to re c on sid e r b e c a

us e his fo rm e r atto rn e y ’s ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l wa s g ro un ds to eq uit a bly tol l th e tim e lim it to file his motion to reope n and, therefor e, any evidenc e of ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel in the
su pp le me nta l me mor and

um s ho uld have be e n c on sid e re d. Al tho ug h we have he ld t hat “ ‘[e ]qui ta

ble tolling may

apply when a petitioner has r ece ived ineff ective as s i s t an ce of counse l,’” we need not addre ss this issue beca

use Carr oll did not establish due dili g ence in pursuing his rig hts. Ba rry , 524 F.3d at 724 ( quoting Lj ucovic v. Gonzales , 144 F. App' x 500, 503 (6th Cir. 2005)).No. 07-4242

CARROL Lv. HOL DER

The Attorne y

Gene ral re cently

decide d Matter of Compean , 24 I &N Dec . 710 (A.G. 2009) , 1 which over

ruled Matter of Lozada , 1 9 I & N D e c . 6 3 7 ( B I A 1 9 8 8 ) , an d Ma t t er of Assaad , 2 3 I &N De c . 5 53 (B I A 20 03 ). Ho we ve r, we de c lin e to a dd re ss t he iss ue of

wh e the r a

n a lie n is e nti tle d to eff ective as s i s t an ce of

counsel unde r the F ifth Amendment bec ause Car roll did not ex hibit due dil ig e nc e in p ur su ing

his ri g hts
. - 6 - Her e, the I J and the B I A ac cepte d Carroll' s ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel asser tions as tr ue , b ut b oth

ru le d a g a ins t Ca

rr oll be c a us e he fa ile d to est a

bli shdu e dil ig e nc e in p ur su inghis ri g hts
. Th e re fo re , th e B I A’ s d e c isi on to af fi rm the de nia l of

Carr oll ’s mot ion

to r e c on sid e r w a s n ot a

n a bu se of discre tion. The issues of whether

Carroll' s attorney ' s conduct c onstitut ed inef fec tive assistance or whether Carroll is even entitled to eff ective assistance of counsel under the F ifth Amendment, are 1 issues that we ne ed not addr ess. PETI TI ON DEN I ED.