11 -34 27

Sin gh v. Hold er BIA A07 5 2 46 64 0 A07 5 2 60 83 2 A07 5 2 60 83 3 A07 5 2 60 83 4 

### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F AP PEA L S FOR T HE S E C O

ND C I R CU I T 

## S UM M ARY O RD E R

RULIN GS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECE DENTI AL EFFEC T. CITAT ION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUA RY 1, 2007, IS P E R M I T T E D A

ND IS GOVER

NED BY FEDER

AL RULE OF APPEL LATE PROCE DURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1. 1. WHEN CITIN G A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHE R THE FEDE R AL APPENDIX OR AN ELECT RONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE N OTATI ON “S UMMARY ORD ER”). A PARTY C ITINGA SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A C OPY O F IT ON AN Y PARTY NO T REP RESEN TED B Y COUNSEL. 1 At a state d term of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for the Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Dani el Pa trickMoyn ihan 3 Unite d Sta tes C ourth ouse, 500 Pearl Stre et, i n the Cityof N ew 4 York, on the 17 day of Ju ly, two th ousan d twe lve. th 5 6 PRESE NT: 7 RALPHK. W INTER , 8 JOSÉ A. CA BRANE S, 9 DENNYCHIN , 10 Circu it Ju dges . 11 12 13 CHARA

N SIN GH, A

KA GURCHAR

AN MU LTANI , 14 et al . , 15 Petit ioners, 16 17 v. 11-34 27 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HO LDER, JR., UNIT ED STATES 20 ATTOR

NEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent . 22 23 24 FOR P ETITI ONERS : Chara n Sin gh, pro s e . 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuar t F. Deler y, Ac ting Assis tant 27 Attor ney G enera l; Th omas B. Fa touro s, 28 Senio r Lit igati on Co unsel ; James A. 29 Hurle y, At torne y, Of fice of Im migra tion 30 Litig ation , Uni ted S tates Depa rtmen t of 31 Justi ce, W ashin gton, D.C.1 UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON of this peti tion for r eviewof a 2 Boardof I mmigr ation Appe als ( “BIA” ) dec ision , it is he reby 3 ORDER ED, A DJUDG ED, A ND DE CREED that the petit ion f or re view is 4 DENIE D. 5 Petit ioner s Cha ran S ingh, Jogi nder Kaur, Bikr amjit Sing h 6 and G urjas preet Sing h, na tives and citiz ens o f Ind ia, s eek 7 revie w of an Au gust 3, 20 11, d ecisi on of the BIA d enyin g the ir 8 motio n to reope n the ir immigra tion proce eding s. In reChar an 9 Singh , Jog inder Kaur , Bik ramji t Sin gh an d Gur jaspr eet S ingh , 10 Nos. A075 246 6 40, A 075 2 60 83 2/833 /834 (B.I. A. Au g. 3, 2011 ). 11 We as sume the p artie s’ fa milia rity with the u nderl ying facts 12 and p roced ural histo ry of the case. 13 We re view the B IA’s denia l of a mot ion t o reo pen f or 14 abuse of d iscre tion, mind ful o f the Supr eme C ourt’ s adm oniti on 15 that such motio ns ar e “di sfavo red.” Ali v . Gon zales , 448 F.3d 16 515, 517 ( 2d Ci r. 20 06) ( citin g INS v . Doh erty , 502 U.S. 314, 17 322-2 3 (19 92)). Gen erall y, a motio n to reope n mus t be filed 18 withi n 90 days of th e fin al adminis trati ve or der. See 8 19 U.S.C . § 1 229a( c)(7) (C)(i ); 8 C.F.R . § 1 003.2 (c)(2 ). T he 20 90-da y tim e per iod m ay be equi tablytoll ed wh en th e mot ion i s 21 basedon a clai m of ineff ectiv e ass istan ce of coun sel. See 22 Rashi d v. Mukas ey , 533 F.3d127, 130- 32 (2 d Cir . 200 8); Jin Bo

21 Zhao v. INS , 452 F.3d154, 159 (2d C ir. 2 006). In order to 2 warra nt eq uitab le to lling on t he ba sis o f ine ffect ive 3 assis tance of c ounse l, an alie n cla iming inef fecti ve 4 assis tance “mus t sho w pre judic e res ultin g fro m cou nsel’ s 5 alleg ed de ficie ncies .” Debea tham v. Ho lder , 602 F.3d481, 485 6 (2d C ir. 2 010); see a lso V artel as v. Hold er , 620 F.3d108, 113 7 (2d C ir. 2 010) (“Wha tever the prove nance of t he ri ght [ to 8 couns el in immi grati on pr oceed ings] , an ineff ectiv e-ass istan ce 9 claimcann ot be esta blish ed wi thout some show ing o f 10 preju dice. ”). 11 In th is ca se, b ecaus e the Peti tione rs fa iled to sh ow th at 12 they were preju dicedby t heir attor ney’s alle gedlydefi cient 13 perfo rmanc e, th e BIAdid not a buse its d iscre tion in de nying 14 their moti on to reop en as unti mely. Pet ition ers f ail t o 15 expla in ho w the lett er fr om th e Glo bal H uman Right s Commissi on 16 (“GHR C”) w ould have rehab ilita ted t he nu merou s inc onsis tenci es 17 relie d on by th e age ncy i n fin ding them not c redib le. This is 18 parti cular ly da magin g to the P etiti oners ’ cla im be cause , in 19 its d ecisi on di smiss ing t heir appea l anddeny ing t heir first 20 motio n to reope n the ir immigra tion proce eding s, th e BIA 21 concl uded that the l etter fromthe GHRC was n ot su ffici ent t o 22 overc ome t he Pe titio ners’ cred ibili ty is sues that serve d as

31 the b asis for t he ad verse cred ibili ty de termi natio n. 2 Petit ioner s als o fai led t o dem onstr ate h ow th ey we re 3 preju dicedby t heir couns el’s conce ssion of t heir 4 remov abili ty. They do no t dis pute that Singh ’s as ylum statu s 5 was t ermin ated, whic h res ultedin t he te rmina tion of th e 6 asylu m sta tus o f the rema ining peti tione rs, b ecaus e tha t 7 statu s was deri vativ e of Singh ’s. See 8 C.F .R § 208.2 4(d) 8 (“The term inati on of asyl um st atus for t he pe rson who w as th e 9 princ ipal appli cant shall resu lt in term inati on of the asylu m 10 statu s of a spo use o r chi ld wh ose s tatus was basedon t he 11 asylu m app licat ion o f the prin cipal .”). Nor do th ey po int t o 12 any b asis in th e rec ord u pon w hich they couldasse rt th at th ey 13 had l egal statu s in the U nitedStat es at the time that their 14 attor ney c onced ed th eir r emova bilit y. A ccord ingly , 15 Petit ioner s wer e not prej udice d by this conce ssion . 16 Final ly, n othin g in the r ecordsugg ests that Petit ioner s 17 were preju dicedby t heir attor ney’s fail ure t o see k to 18 conso lidat e rev iew o f the ir re moval proc eedin gs wi th re view of 19 the S pecia l Agr icult ural Worke r app licat ion f iled by Si ngh 20 under a fa lse n ame. Peti tione rs fa il to arti culat e pre cisel y 21 what benef it th ey we re de nied, or h ow re view of th at de nial by 22 the B IA wo uld h ave b enefi tted them, or o therw ise p reclu ded

41 their remo val f rom t he Un ited State s. A ccord ingly , the y 2 faile d to demon strat e pre judic e on this issue as w ell. 3 Becau se th e Pet ition ers f ailedto d emons trate the preju dice 4 requi red f or eq uitab le to lling , the BIA did n ot ab use i ts 5 discr etion by d enyin g the ir mo tion to re open as un timel y. See 6 8 U.S .C. § 1229 a(c)( 7)(C) ; 8 C .F.R. § 10 03.2( c)(2) ; Debea tham , 7 602 F .3d a t 485 . 8 For t he fo regoi ng re asons , the peti tion for r eviewis 9 DENIE D. A s we have compl eted our r eview , anystayof r emova l 10 that the C ourt previ ouslygran ted i n thi s pet ition is VACATE D, 11 and a ny pe nding moti on fo r a s tay o f rem oval in th is pe titio n 12 is DI SMISS ED as moot . Anypend ing r eques t for oral argu ment in 13 this petit ion i s DEN IED i n acc ordan ce wi th Fe deral Rule of 14 Appel late Proce dure 34(a) (2), and S econdCirc uit L ocal Rule 15 34.1( b). 16 FOR T HE CO URT: 17 Cathe rine O’Hag an Wo lfe, Clerk

5