NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0722n.06 No. 09-4306 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
RA G U N I P A T E L, P etitioner , v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Ge ne ra l of

the Un ite d St a te s, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PET I T I O NF OR REVI EW OF ANORDE R O F TH E B OA RD O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS
O P I N I O N

Be for e : M OORE, SU TTON , a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. KA RE N NELSON MOORE, Circuit Jud ge. Petitioner Rag uni Patel (“Patel” ) see ks
re vie w o f a fin a l ord e r iss ue d by the B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls (“ B I A” ), de nying a s unti me ly P a t e l ’ s m o t i o nt o r e o p e nr e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . In h e r p e t i t i o nf o r r e v i e w , P a t e l ar g u e s th a tth e B IA abused its discre tion in: (1) denying Patel’s motion to reopen despite inef fec tive assistance of prior
c ouns e l, a nd (2 ) d e c lin ingto e qu ita

bly tol l th e tim e lin e ss r e qu ir e me nt f or her mot ion

on the same g ro un ds . Upo n r e vie w, we c on c lud e that the B I A did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in d e nyinga s unti me ly Pa te l’ s mo tio n to re op e n a nd in de c lin ing to e qu ita

bly tol l the fi lin g de a dli ne . Pate l di d n ot e sta bli sh that sh e wa s p re

jud ic e d b y

the a c tio ns of

he r p ri or c ouns e l b ecaus e she ha s f a ile d to de mon str a te pr ima fa c ie e lig ibi lity

fo r r e lie f f

ro m r e mov a l. T he re fo re , Pate l’ s p e tit ion fo r r e vie w i s DE NI ED
.No. 09-4306

Patel v. Holde r

2 I. BACKG ROUND Patel is a native a

nd citizen of I ndia. She ar rived in the United States f rom Canada

on or about August 23, 2004. On Aug ust 24, 2004, the Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

(“D HS”) initiated removal proc eeding s ag ainst Patel by filing a Notice to A

ppear (“N TA”) which alleg ed that Patel was re movable for

beingprese nt in the United States without having be en admitted or pa roled, in v iol a tio n o f § 21 2( a )( 6) (A )( i) of the I mmi g ra

ti on and Natio na lity

Ac t ( “ I NA ” ), 8 U .S. C. § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 6)(A) (i). On Nove mber 12, 2004, Patel, without the assistance of counse l, appea red befor e an immig ration judg e (“ I J ”) a nd admitted that she did not fea r returning to I

ndia, but rathe r that she had come to the United States for economic rea sons. T he I J continued the he aringso that Patel could sea

rch f or re prese ntation. On September

16, 2005, Patel, aga i n without repre sentation, appe are d at her continued hear ing be fore a diffe rent I J
. At this hearing , Patel admitted all of the a lleg ations listed in the NTA. As a re sult, the I J found that Patel wa s subject to remova l and desig nated I n d i a as he r country of
remova l. Wi th respec t to her fe ar of return, Pate l told the I J that her pa rents would kill her if she returne d to I ndia without mone y to repa y the family ’s cr editors. In response , the I J advised Patel that she wa s time-barr ed fr om applying f or asylum but could instead file f or withholding of

remova l and protec tion under the Convention Ag ains t T orture ( “CAT”) . The I J provided Patel with an I -589 application and instruc tions for complying w ith its biometrics require ments. The I J set a de adline of Nove mber 30, 2005 for Patel to comply

with the biometrics re quirements and January 12, 2006 for he r to submit to t he cour t notice of c ompliance a long w i t h an I -589 application. Patel wasNo. 09-4306

Patel v. Holde r

3 a dv ise d th a t if

sh e did no t c omp ly , a

nd cou ld no t sh owe xce pti on a l c ir c ums tanc e s f or fa ilure to comply , her a

pplication would be dee med aba ndoned and r elief w ould be denied. On F e br ua ry 24 , 20 06 , Pa te l a

pp e are d a t a he ari ng wi th c ouns e l; ho we ve r, sh e did no t su bmi t a complete d I -589 application or evidenc e of biometrics compliance
. Despite Patel’s failure to meet the cour t’s orig inal deadlines, the I J set a ne w dea dline of Mar ch 31, 2006 for biometrics compliance and April 28, 2006 for Patel to file he r application for re lief. On July 25, 2006, three months after the extended deadline ha d passed, Patel attempted to file an a pplication for withholding of re moval and prote ction under the CAT; however , her ap p l i ca tion sti ll did not provide proof of biometric s compliance . On August 2, 2006, the I J i s s u ed a written order de eming Patel’s applications abandone d and deny

ing relief beca

use Patel had failed to me et the filing deadline and had pr ovided
no pr oo f t hat sh e ha d c omp lie d w iththe bio me tr ic s r e qu ir e me nts
. On Octobe r 26, 2006, Patel appe are d befor e the I J with c ounsel, but a g ain failed to provide a complete d application. At the hear ing, Pate l declined to see k voluntary depar ture a nd rese rved he r rig ht to appeal the I J ’s orde r of r emoval. The I J found that Patel’ s fa i l u re timely to file an application for

relief from re moval or to comply with the biometrics re quirements, without g ood
cause , constituted abandonme nt of the application. Accor dingly , t he I J issued an ora l decision denying Pate l’s applications for withholding of r emoval and protection under the C AT and ordering her r emoved to India. Patel appe aled the I J ’s dec ision to t he B I A, which dismissed the appe al and issued a fina l order of

remova l on J uly

11, 2008. The B I A noted that Patel “makes no cla im on appea l that she ever complied with the fil ing instructions g iven t o her or that she has a

meritoriousNo. 09-4306

Patel v. Holde r

4 claim to w ithholding of remova l or protec tion unde r the Convention A gai n s t T o rt ure.” Administrative Record ( “A.R.”) at 164. On Marc h 25, 2009, with the assistance of new counsel, Patel filed with the BIA a motion to reope n, claiming that ineffe ctive assistanc e of prior counsel ha d preve nted her from prope rly

filing an application for re lief. Patel also cla imed that ineffe ctive assistanc e of pr ior counsel e x cused he r failure to file the motion to reope n within ninety day s of the B I A’s fina l order. She a lleg ed that her former attorney had not notified her

of the dism issal of her appea l or of her option to file a motion to reope n. O nS e p t e mb e r

3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e B IAd e n i e d P a t e l ’ s m o t i o nt o r e o p e na s un t i m e l y . T h e B IA deter mined that Patel had fa iled to show that she was pr ejudi ce d by the conduc t of her f

ormer attorney beca

use “[s]he ha[d] not made out a prima facie case of eligibility for r elief f

rom remova l.” A. R. at 2. Pa te l ti me ly

fi le d a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w i n th is c ourt
. II. AN AL YSI S Patel claims that her r emoval procee dings should be reopene d beca use she wa s prejudice d by the i neff

ective assistance of her prior counsel. In particula r, P atel arg ues that she wa s prejudice d by her pr ior counsel’ s failure timely to f ile an application for relief on her behalf , to notify her of the denial of he r appe al, and to file a motion to reope n. Consequently , Patel argues t hat t he B I A abuse d its discretion when it dec lined to equitably toll the filing period for her motion to re open and the n d e n i e d h e r m o t i o nt o r e o p e na s u n t i m e l y.No. 09-4306

Patel v. Holde r

Patel argues that she ha s satisfied the proce dural re quirements for establishing ine ffe ctive 1 assistance of counse l under Matter of Lozada , 19 I
. & N . Dec . 637, 639 (B I A 1988). We note that the Lozada require ments were abrog ated in par t by the Attorney Ge nera l’s decision in Matter of 5 We reviewthe B I A’s denia l of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Allabani v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 668, 675 ( 6th Cir. 2005). The B I A abuse s its d iscretion whe n the denial of a motion to reope n “wa s made without a rational explanation, inex plicably depar ted from e stablished polices, or r ested on a

n impermissible basis suc h as invidious discrimination ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or g roup.” Id. (interna l quotation mar ks omitt ed). “ Howeve r, whe re the re is a c laim of ineff ective assistance of counse l, we re view this question of law de novo.” Id. at 676. We conclude that Patel has “fa iled to establish prima fac ie eligibility for relief,” and we deny Patel’s petition for re view. See id. ; see also INS v. A budu , 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988) (“[T] he BI A may deny a motion to reopen . . . [when] the movant has not establishe d a prima f acie case for the underlying substantive relief soug ht.”). A motion to reope n must be filed with the BIA “within 90 da y s o f t he date of

e ntr y of a fi nal adm inistr a tiv e or de r o f r e mov a l.” I NA§ 2 40 (c )( 7) , 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 9a (c )( 7) . “ Whe re an a lie n s e e ks to r e op e n a tim e -b arr e d mo tio n, th e do ctr ine o f e qu ita ble tolling m ay be applied to pe rmit reopeningwhen the a lien demonstrates that she rec eived inef fec tive assistance of counse l and was pr ejudiced the reby .” Mezo v . Holder , 615 F.3d 616, 620 ( 6th Cir. 2010). We may

“dec line[] to equitably

toll the tim e per iod for filing motions t o reope n . . . wher e the petitioner fa il[ s] t o establish prejudice from . . . [an] unti mely appea l.” Id. Patel’s claim of ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel fails bec ause she has not e stablished that he r f or me r atto rn e y ’s pe rf

or manc e pr e

jud ic e d h e r c a se . In order to showpr e jud ic e , Pate l mu st 1No. 09-4306

Patel v. Holde r

Compean , 24 I . & N . Dec . 710 (A.G. 2009) . Howeve r, in June 2009, the Attorney Gene ral va cate d the Compean decision and dire cted the B I A to apply the pre viously

establish ed Lozada standards pendinga compr ehensive rulemakingproce ss. Matter of Compean , 25 I
. & N. Dec
. 1 (A.G. 2009)
. We d o n o t n e e d

to r e a c hth e is s u e o f

w h e th e r Pate l s u f

f ic ie n tl y c o mp li e d

w it han y r e le v ant proce dural require ments beca use she has not de monstrated pre judice fr om her attorney ’s def icient perf ormanc e. A m oti on to r e op e n mu st b e a c c omp anie d b y the a pp licatio n f

or the re qu e ste d r e lie f w ith 2 su pp or tin g do c ume ntatio n. 8 C. F .R. §§ 10 03 .2 (c )( 1) ; Matter of Y ewondwosen , 21 I
. & N . Dec . 1025, 1026 (B I A 1997). 6 demonstrate pr ima fac ie elig ibilit y for the unde rlying r elief soug ht. Allabani , 402 F.3d at 676-78;

see Hu ic oc he a- Go me

z v . I NS , 237 F.3d 696, 699 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (holding that, beca use petitioners “conc eded that they

are ineligible f

or ca ncellation of r emoval, they could not possibly

be pre judiced by counsel’s a lleg ed ineffec tive assistance ”). Patel was re quired to include he r application for re lief in her motion to reopen w ith the Boa rd, but she did not do so. In fac t, Patel has not demonstrate d 2 that she has e ver pr operly filed an a

pplication for withholding of re moval or protec tio n u n d er the CAT, even a fter le arningof the de nial of her appea l and re tai n i n g n ew co unsel. Given that Patel cannot make a prima f

acie showing of entitlement to relief , Patel fails to s h o w p re

j udice. See Sc or te an u v . I

NS , 339 F.3d 407, 414 (6th Cir. 2003) (de nying r elief on ine ffe ctive assistanc e g rounds when pe titioner failed to make a prima f acie showing of entitlement to equitable tolling ). III . C ON CL USI ON B e c a us e Pate l c ann ot s ho w p re jud ic e c a us e d b y inef

fe c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of pr ior c ouns e l,
e qu ita ble tol lin g do e s n ot a

pp ly , an d Pate l’ s motio n to re op e n is no t ti me ly . T he re fo re , th e B I A d idNo. 09-4306

Patel v. Holde r

7 not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the filing per iod and in denying Pate l’s motion to reope n. Acc ording ly , we DENY Patel’s petition for re view.