FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14617 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 96- 810- 579 A 96- 610- 580 E L I Z A B E T H C U B I L L O S , J A M E S I S A Z A , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju n e 19, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E l i z a be th C ubi l l os a nd he rhus ba nd, J a m e s I s a z a , na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of2

C o lu m b ia , p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e d e c is io n o f

th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls d en yi n g th ei r m o t i o n t o reo p en th ei r rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s. I. C u b illo s a n d I s a z a e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s a s n o n - im m ig r a n t v is ito r s in 19 98 . A ft erthey w er e s erved n ot i ce s t o app ea r f or re m ai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed S t at es l on ger than p erm i tt ed, C ub i l l os, w i th Isa zaas a der i vat i ve appl i ca nt , fi l ed an appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd s oughtr e l i e f unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n a nd D e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt . T he I m m i gr a t i on J udge de ni e d r e l i e f a nd the B I A di s m i s s e d the pe t i t i one r s ’ appe a l . C ubi l l os a nd I s a z a di d notf i l e a pe t i t i on f

or r e v ie w w ith th is C o u r t. Inst ea d, they f

i l ed a m ot i on t o reopen w i th t he B IA . T hatm ot i on w as base d o n a cl ai m o f i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel an d co n t en d ed th atth ei r at t o rn ey, D a r n e ll T . F lo w e r s , h a d n o t a d e q u a te ly r e p r e s e n te d th e m o n ap p e a l to th e B I A . T h e B I A d e n ie d th e m o tio n to r e o p e n . I t in itia lly d e te r m in e d th a t th e y h a d f a ile d to c o m p ly w ith th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f M a tte ro f

L o z a d a , 1 9 I & N D e c . 6 3 7 ( B I A 1 9 8 8 ) . F urtherm ore, the B IA concl ud ed thatthe pet i t i on er s had fa i l ed t o est abl i sh that the y s uf f e r e d pr e j udi c e a s a r e s ul tof

the a l l e ge d i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e . C ubi l l os a n d I s a z a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.3 II. A s a n i ni t i al m att er , w e c on cl ud e thatw e do n othave j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the pe t i t i on i ns of

a ra s i ta tt a c ks both the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on a ga i ns tC ubi l l os a nd the unde r l y i ng de c i s i ons de ny i ng the pe t i t i one r s ’ appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . A pe t i t i one rha s onl y thi r ty da y s f r om the d a te o f th e f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l w ith in w h ic h to f ile a p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(1). T hi s l i m i t at i on peri od i s “ m andat ory a nd j uri sdi ct i on al . ” D a ka ne , 399 F . 3d a t1272 n. 3 ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i t t e d) . T he f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l i n thi s c a s e w a s e nt e r e d on M a y 10, 2007. C ubi l l os a nd Is az a di d n otfi l e apet i t i on for r evi ew un t i l near l y f i ve m on ths l at eri n O ct ob er 2 0 0 7 . T h is C o u r t c a n n o t, th e r e f o r e , r e v ie w th e I J ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e r m i na t i on orthe de ni a l of the pe t i t i one r s ’ appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . S ee i d. (r ef usi ng t o con si der the m er i t s of the B IA ’ s f i nal or de rof r e m ova l ba s e d on a l a c k of j ur i s di c t i on be c a us e i tt ook the a l i e n ove rf our m o n th s to f

ile a p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w ) . W e al so l ack j u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th e p et i t i o n ers’ cl ai m s, w h i ch th ey rai se f orthe f i r s tt i m e i n thi s C our t , tha tthe y w e r e pr e j udi c e d by F l ow e r s ’ i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e irr e m o v a l h e a r in g . T h e p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to reo p en w as b ased ex cl u si v el y o n th e al l eg ed i n ad eq u aci es o f F l o w ers’ r e p r e s e n ta tio n b e f

o r e th e B I A o n ap p e a l. B e c a u s e th e p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n f a ile d to4

c ha l l e nge the e f

f e c t i ve ne s s of

F l ow e r s ’ r e pr e s e nt a t i on dur i ng the c our s e of the re m ov al hear i ng , thi s C ou rtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der tho se cl ai m s. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ( “ A c our tm a y r e vi e w a f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l onl y i f

. . . the a lie n h a s e x h a u s te d a ll a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s a v a ila b le to th e a lie n a s o f r ig h t . . .

. ”) ; F ernand ez -B ernal v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 25 7 F . 3d 13 04 , 13 17 n. 13 (11t h C i r. 2001) ( f i ndi ng tha tthe C our tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de ra n i s s ue tha tthe p e titio n e rf

a ile d to r a is e b e f

o r e th e B I A ) .

III. W i th r e s pe c tt o the pe t i t i on i ns of a ra s i tc ha l l e nge s the B I A ’ s de ni a l of the m ot i on t o r e ope n, w e r e vi e w onl y f ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. M e

j i a R odr i gue z v. R en o , 1 7 8 F .3 d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 5 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). “In th is p ar ti cu lar a re a, th e B IA ’s di sc re t i on i s qui t e broad, ” A ni n v . R eno, 18 8 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 76 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ) ( per curi am ), and o ur re vi ew i s l i m i t ed t o d et erm i ni ng “ w hether there has bee n an exer ci se of adm i ni stra t i ve di sc re t i on and w hether the m att erof exer ci se has bee n arbi tra ry or capri ci ou s, ” A bd i v. U . S . A t t ’ y G en. , 43 0 F . 3d 11 48 , 11 49 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . “[ A ]n a lie n in c iv il d e p o r ta tio n p r o c e e d in g s , w h ile n o t e n title d to a S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o u n s e l, h a s th e c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t u n d e rth e F if th A m e ndm e ntD ue P r oc e s s C l a us e r i ghtt o a f unda m e nt a l l y f

a i rhe a r i ng t o e f

f e c t i ve as sistan ce o f c o u n se l w h er e c o u n se l h as b ee n o b tain ed .” D ak an e v . U .S . A tt ’yCubill os and I saza also contend that the BIA er red by deter mining that they

had not 1 satisfied the third prongof L ozada. In support of their motion to reopen, Cubill os submitt ed an 5 G en. , 39 9 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 73 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). A m ot i on t o reopen b as ed on an i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel cl ai m req u i res: ( 1 ) th a t th e m o tio n b e s u p p o r te d b y a n a f f id a v it o f th e a lle g e d ly aggri eved res po nd entse tt i ng forth i n d et ai l the agree m entthatw as e nt e r e d i nt o w i th c ouns e l w i th r e s pe c tt o the a c t i ons t o be t a ke n a nd w h a t r e p r e s e n ta tio n s c o u n s e l d id o rd id n o t m a k e to th e r e s p o n d e n t in thi s r e ga r d, ( 2) tha tc ouns e l w hos e i nt e gr i ty orc om pe t e nc e i s be i ng i m pugne d be i nf

or m e d of the a l l e ga t i ons l e ve l e d a ga i ns thi m a nd be gi ven an o pp ortun i ty t o res po nd , and (3) thatthe m ot i on re fl ec t w hether acom pl ai nthas bee n fi l ed w i th app ropri at e di sc i pl i nary autho ri t i es w i th res pectt o any vi ol at i on of coun se l ’ s e thi ca l or l egal r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , a n d if

n o t, w h y n o t. I d . a t 1 2 7 4 ( q u o tin g L o z a d a , 1 9 I & N D e c . a t 6 3 9 ) . I n a ddi t i on t o e s t a bl i s hi ng “ s ubs t a nt i a l , i f note xa c t , c om pl i a nc e w i th the pr oc e dur a l r e qui r e m e nt s of L oz a da , a pe t i t i one rc l a i m i ng i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l . . . m us ta l s o s how pr e j udi c e . ” I d. “ P r e

j udi c e e xi s t s w he n the perf orm ance of coun se l i s s o i nadequ at e thatthere i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty that bu tfor the att orney’ s e rr or, the ou t com e of the proceedi ng s w ou l d h ave been d if f e r e n t.” I d . W e c onc l ude tha tthe B I A di d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the pet i t i on er s’ m ot i on t o reopen. A l tho ug h C ub i l l os and Isa zacont end t hatthey sat i sfi ed al l th ree o f th e L o zad a req u i rem en t s, th ey fai l ed t o co m p l y w i th atl east the s e c ond pr ong. I n a r gui ng tha tthe y c om pl i e d w i th thi s r e qui r e m e nt , C ubi l l os 1aff

idavit, which alleg ed that she had filed a c omplaint ag ainst Flowers with the Tenne ssee B oard of Profe ssional Responsibil ity . Although theaff idavit stated that a c opy

of the ba r complaint was attached to the motion to reopen, the re cord doe s not refle ct that such a complaint was ever attac he d. In d e nyingthemotion to re op e n, theB IA n ote d th at th epe tition e rs had f aile d to prod uc e“ any e vide nc eto s ub sta

nti atethe ir

a ssertion ”of

havingfi le d a

ba r c omp laint . This Court has never dec ided whether a mere statement in an af fidavit that a ba

r complaint has be en filed, without any

supporting evidence , constitutes compliance w ith the third L ozada requirement. We need not dec ide that issue in this case be causethe petitioners failed to satisfy these c on d re quire ment. 6 and Isa zacont end t hatthe B IA appl i ed the w rong l egal st andard w hen i tconcl ud ed that“ [t ] here i s no evi dence thatthe re spon dent s s peci fi ca l l y i nform ed M r. F l ow er s of the i nst antm ot i on and g ave hi m an op po rtun i ty t o res po nd i n a t i m el y m anner. ” T he pet i t i on er s c on t end t hatL ozada does notre qu i re , as the B IA sugg es t ed, that the att orney be i nform ed thata m ot i on t o reopen h as been fi l ed bu ti nst ea d requi re s o n ly th a t th e a tto r n e y b e in f o r m e d o f th e a lle g a tio n s o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . E v en i f th e p et i t i o n ers’ i n t erp ret at i o n o f L o zad a i s co rrect , C u b i l l o s’ af fi davi tdo es no tes t abl i sh thatF l ow er s w as “ i nform ed of the al l egat i on s l evel ed a ga i ns thi m ” or“ gi ve n a n oppor tuni ty t o r e s pond. ” D a ka ne , 399 F . 3d a t1274 ( quot i ng L oz a da , 19 I & N D e c . a t639) . C ubi l l os ’ a f f i da vi ta t t e s t e d onl y tha t : ( 1) F l ow er s t ol d h erhe w as go i ng t o t ra nsfe r the ca se t o N as hv i l l e, T enness ee , w hi ch n e v e rh ap p e n e d ; ( 2 ) w h ile F lo w e r s w a s p r e p a r in g th e ap p e a l, C u b illo s w a s u n a b le t o con t ac thi m and h e s t op ped returni ng her c al l s; (3) F l ow er s e ventual l y s chedul ed an appo i nt m entt o m ee tw i th C ub i l l os on M ay 17 , 20 07 bu tca ncel l ed the day before the m ee t i ng ; (4) F l ow er s i nform ed C ub i l l os thathe coul d n o l on gerThe pe titioners also argue that they were entitled to a rebuttable presumption of 2 pre judic ebe c a

us eF low e rs faile d tofi lean a pp e llatebrie f w iththeB IA. B e c a us ea motion to reopen based on ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel must both comply with the L ozada proc edural requirements and establish pre judice, seeDaka

ne, 399 F .3d at 1274, we ne ed not dec ide whether theB IA a bu se d it s disc retio n b y

de terminingthat th epe tition e rs had n ot s ho wn pre judic ea s a result of their f

ormer attorney ’s conduc t. 7 re pres enther; (5) F l ow er s t ol d C ub i l l os thathe w ou l d send h erfi l e bac k t o h er , w h ic h h e n e v e rd id ; a n d ( 6 ) F lo w e r s f a ile d to f ile a b r ie f

in C u b illo s ’ a p p e a l. T ho se al l egat i on s do n otes t abl i sh thatC ub i l l os everi nform ed F l ow er s of her i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m s orga ve hi m a n oppor tuni ty t o r e s pond. B e c a us e the pe t i t i one r s di d nots a t i s f y the s e c ond L oz a da r e qui r e m e nt , the B IA d i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n b y d en yi n g th ei r m o t i o n t o reo p en . A cco rd i n g l y, w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on i ns of a ra s i tc ha l l e nge s the de ni a l of the m ot i on t o r e ope n. 2 PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.