NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0898n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 15, 2006 Case No. 05- 4246 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT CH AN DA NAWEE RA SIN G HE, P etitioner , v. AL BER TO G ON Z AL ES, A tt or ne y G e ne r al, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N AP P EA LS

BEF ORE: BA TC HELD ER , G ILM AN and R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Petitioner Chandana Wee rasing he (“Wee rasing he”) seeks r eview of the orde r of the B oard of I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”) denying h i s m otion to reopen de portation proce eding s. The B I A conc luded that the motion to reopen w as untimely and it ref used to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling. Wee rasing he petitions for re view, contendingthat the ineffe ctive assistance of his f ormer counsel cause d the late filing of his moti on to reope n and ther efor e the doct ri n e of equitable tolling should apply . We rejec t Weerasing he’s arguments and deny

the petition for re view.

I. Bac kgr ound Weera singhe was born in Sri L anka in 1978. Ac cordingto his o wn testimony , he wa s

arr ested by

Sri L ankan police in Aug ust 1999 and detained for seven or eight day s. He c ontends thatT he evi d ent i ary val ue o f t hese l et t ers i s q uest i o nab l e b ecause t hey d o not i nd i cat e t he source o f or any 1 i n f or mat i on r eg ar di n g t h e “ bl ows ” t o W ee r as i n g h e’ s h ea d. 2 duringthis ti me he wa s repe atedly beate n and questioned r egar d ing his fr iendship with a member of the Tamil Tig ers terror ist org anization. He further alleg es that his father secur ed his rele ase by bribing Sri L ankan officia ls. Soon ther eaf ter Weer asing he fle d from his homeland to Canada , wher e he liv e d f or a y e ar. Whil e in C ana da , We e ra sin g he a pp lie d f or , b ut d id no t re c e ive , re fu g e e status

. Approxim ate ly

N o v e mb e r

1 1 , 2 0 0 0 , We e r a s in g h e e n te r e d th e U n it e d

St ate s . T h e f

o r mer I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) broug ht c harg es ag ainst him, a lleg ing that he wa s

remova ble from the United States beca use he e ntere d this country in vio l at i o n o f S ection 21 2( a )( 6) (A )( i) of

the I mmi g ratio n a

nd Natio na lity

Ac t (“ Ac t” ), 8 U. S.C. § 1 18 2( a )( 6) (A )( i) . A t hi s August 2001 deportation hea ring , Weera singhe admitted that he wa s removable under the Act, but ind ic ate d h is d e s ir e to a

p p ly f o r a s ylum, w it

h h o ld in go f

r e mo v a l, an d

p r o te c ti o nun d e r

the Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT” ). The immigration judg e (“ I J ”) se t the next removal hear ing fo r M arc h 1 4, 20 02 , a

nd no te d th at su

pp or tin gdo c ume nta

ry e vid e nc e mus t be su

bmi tte d at le a st fo urt ee nd ay s p ri o r t o th ath ea ri n g. Sometime prior to the Marc h 14 hear ing, Wee rasing he’s attorney , J ay Perez (“Perez ”), informed Weer asing he of t h e n ee dto submitcorr oboratingdocuments to support his asylum application. Weer asing he alleg es t hat he de livered the documents to Perez at lea st one month before the hea ring . Perez, howeve r, asse rts that Weera s inghe did not provide him with the requeste d documents until a fe w day s prior to the hea ring . In any

event, Per ez attempted to introduce thre e doc u me n ts at th e M ar c h 1 4 h e ar in g . T w o o f th e d o c u me n ts w e r e le tt e r s w r itte n b y Sr i L ankan doctors statingthat Weera singhe had suff ere d “blows on his head.” The other document wa s a letter 13

from Commercia l Ba

nk o f C ey l on indicatingthat a lar g e sum of Sri L ankan mone y was re lease d from an unide ntified bank acc o u n t on August 17, 1999. Perez told the I J that he re quested the documents fr om Weera s i n gh e “a long time ag o,” but that Weera singhe had trouble obta ining the documents fr om Sri L anka. Weera singhe stated that he w as unable to find someone to translate the d o c u m e n t s un t i l th e “ l a s tm i nu t e . ” B e c a u s e t h e th r e e d o c u m e n t s w e r e d at e d p r i o r t o 2 0 0 1 , th e IJ fo un d th at We e ra sin g he ha d a c c ess to th em lo ngbe fo re the e vid e nti ary de a dli ne , a

nd re fu se d to

a dmi t th e m. At another

point during t h e hear ing, Per ez reque sted a c ontinuance be cause Weera singhe “could not answ er e ven si mple questions and appear ed to be .

. . disoriented,” but the r equest wa s de nie d. Thus W eeras inghe ’s pr ima ry e vid e nc e wa s h is l a c klu ste r t e sti mony that r e c ounte d h is de te nti on in S ri L ank a

and the nume ro us thr e ats h e re c e ive d f ro m lo c a l po lic e and

te rr or ist org anizations. The I J reje cted Weera singhe ’s claims for asylum, withholdingof re moval, and CAT protec tion, finding that his testimony was n o t cr edible and highlightinghis failure to provide

corr oboratingevidenc e. After the I J ’s dec ision, P ere z tol d Weera singhe that “his case was not a strong case for a ppeal [because he ] wa s an extremely poor witness and . . . the re w as we ak evide nce.” Weera singhe responde d by

informingPerez that he would hire another lawy er to handle the appea l. Howeve r, two day s prior to t he appe al dea dline, Weera singhe chang ed his mind and asked Per ez to file a brief on h i s b e h a l f ; P e r e z a g r e e d

an d f i l e d a s h o rtf o ur - p a g e b r i e f

i nw h i c hh e a s s e rt e d

tw o e r r o r s : ( 1 ) th e IJ

err ed in finding that Weera singhe lacke d cre dibilit y and (2) the I J err ed in denying the reque st for

a c on tin ua nc e . Pe re z did

no t e xpre ssl y c on te nd that the I J e rr e d in e xclu din g the thr e e do c ume nts p ro ff er edd uri n g th e h ea ri n g.J a y P e re z ve h e m e n tly d isp u te s the a lleg a tio n tha t his re p re se n ta tio n o f W e e ra sin g h e a m o u n te d to 2 ine ff e c tive a ssista n c e o f co u n se l. 4 On Marc h 26, 2003, while the B I A appe al was pe nding, Per ez filed a mot ion to withdraw a s counsel be cause Weera singhe had re tained a ne w attorney

. I mmediately there afte r Pere z forwar ded Wee ra sin g he a

c op y of his fi le . O n Apri l 4, 20 03, We e ra sin g he ’s c ur re nt c ouns e l, E . D e nn is Muchnicki (“ Muchnicki”) , enter ed an appea ranc e in the removal proce eding s. Over three months l at er , o nJ u l y

1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , th e B I A a ff

i rm edth e IJ ’s d ec i s i o nwi th o u to p i n i o n . W ee ra s i n gh e, th ro u gh his c ouns e l Mu c hn ic ki, a

pp e a le d th e B oa

rd ’s de c isi on

to t he thi s Cour

t, a rguin gthat th e I J er

re d in excluding the c orrobor atingdocuments prof fe re d at t he hea

ring . On May

27, 2005, this Court de c lare d th at it

la c ke d jur isd ic tio n to add re ss the a dmi ssi bil ity

of the pr of fe re d d oc ume nts be c a

us e Wee ra sin g he ha d n ot made th at argume nt b e fo re the B I A a nd ha d th e re fo re fa ile d to e xha us t hi s administrative re medies. See W e e ra singh e v . A sh c ro

ft , No. 03-4062, 134 F ed. Appx. 26 (6th Cir. May 27, 2005). On Ju ly 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , We e r a s in g h e f il e d a mo ti o n to r e o p e n h is r e mo v a l p r o c e eding s. He specific ally

argued that Pere z prov i d ed ineffe ctive assistanc e beca use his BIA brief

did not 2

c ha lle ng e the I J’s e xclu sio n o f t hr e e corrob or atin gdo c ume nts and the re fo re it “ wa s la c kin gin

su bs tanc e .” On Se pte mbe r 26, 20 05 , the B I A r e je c te d We e ra sin g he ’s mot ion to r e op e n b e c a

us e it

wa s f ile d lo nga ft e r t

he e xpir atio n o f t

he statut or

y 90 -d ay tim e lim it. Th e B I A a lso re fu se d to a pp ly the doctrine o f eq u i table tolling be cause Weera singhe failed to show that he “ac ted with due dil ig e nc e .” Wee ra sin g he fi le d a tim e ly pe tit ion fo r r e vie w w iththi s Co ur t. II. Ana lys is This Court has jurisdiction to review the B I A’s denia l of a motion to reopen de portation5

proce eding s. Haddad v. Gonzale s , 437 F.3d 515, 517 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)). We reviewthe denial of

a motion to reope n for abuse of discr etion. Ha rc he nk o v . I NS , 379 F.3d 405, 4 0 9 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g IN S v. Do he rty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992)) . “In deter mining whe ther the B oard a

bused its discr etion, this Court must de cide whether the denial of [t he] motion to reope n . . . was made without a rational e x planation, inexpli cably depar ted from e stablish ed p o l i cies, or rested on a

n impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or

g roup.” Sako v. G onzales , 4 3 4 F. 3 d 8 5 7 , 8 6 3 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Allabani v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005)). A r e s p o n d e n ti na r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g m ay f i l e a m o t i o n t o r e o p e n at an y t i m e w i th i n 9 0 d ays of the fina l administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(7) (C)(i). In our case there i s no dispute that Weera singhe did not file his moti on to reope n within the 90-day period. The BIA entered it s final order of re moval on J uly 14, 2003, and Weera singhe did not f ile his moti on to reope n until J uly 26, 2005, more than two year s after the final a dminist rative de cision. On appe al Weera singhe challeng es the B I A’s re fusal to equitably t o l l the 90-da y filing period. The BIA expressly found that W eerasing he could not “r ely upon ‘equitable tolling’ of a filing de adline” be cause he fa iled to show that he “a cted with due dilig ence .” Weer asing he ar g ues that equitable tolling should a pply b ec au s e his former

counsel, Jay

Perez, rende red ine ffe ctive assistance by

failingto challeng e the admissibili ty of corroborating evidence in his brief to the B I A,

c a us ingthi s Co ur

t to re je c t th at argume nt f

or fa ilure to ex hau st a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s. Weera singhe also contends that his due diligenc e should be measure d from the date of this Court’s May 2005 decision, rather than the date of Perez’s alleg ed inef

fec tive assi s tance in 2003. For the following rea sons, we re

ject both ar g uments and af firm the B I A’s dec ision.T h e B IA re q u ire s tha t a p e tit io n e r a sse rting ine ff e c tive a ssista n c e o f co u n se l m u st su p p o rt the m o tio n to 3 re o p e n w ith (1 ) “a n a ff id a v it se tti n g fo rth ‘i n d e ta il the a g re e m e n t t h a t wa s e n te re d into w ith fo rm e r c o u n se l with res p ect t o t he act i o ns t o be t aken, ’ as well as any represent at i o ns m ad e b y co unsel t o t he al i en; (2) pro o f t hat t he m o vant has i nf

o rme d f o rme r counsel of t he al l egat i o ns i n wri t i ng, as well as any res p o nse r eceived; and (3) a s t at ement det ai l i ng ‘ whe t her a c om pl ai nt ha s been f i l ed wi t h a pp r op r i at e di s ci pl i nar y au t hor i t i es r ega r di ng s uch r epre s ent at i on, an d i f

not , wh y not

. ” Scor t eanu , 33 9 F.3d at 41 4 (quo t i ng M at t er of Loz ada , 19 I

. & N

. D ec . 637, 6 3 9 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ), a

f f ’d , 8 5 7 F .2d 1 0 (1 st C i r. 1 9 8 8 )). T he re is no d i sp ute that W ee rasingh e h as sati sf i ed t he se r e qu i r e me n t s i n f

i l i n g h i s mo t i on t o r e op e n w i t h t h e BI A. 6 We rec ogniz e t h ata p et i t i o n er i ni m m i gra t i o np ro ce ed i n gs m ay p re s en ta c l ai mfo r i n effective assistance of counsel. Sc or te an u v . I NS , 339 F.3d 407, 413 ( 6th Cir. 2003). “B eca use a de portation proce edingis a purely civil action, an ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel claim is review ed under the Due Process Clause of the F ifth Amendment rather than unde r the Six th Amendment.” Denk o v. IN S , 351 F.3d 717, 723 ( 6th Cir . 2003). “Ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel in a depor tation proce edingwill rise to the l evel of a due-proce ss violation under the Fifth Ame ndment ‘only if the pr oc e e din gwa s so fu

nd ame nta lly

un fa ir tha t th e a lie n w a s p re ve nte d f ro m r e a so na

bly pr e se nti nghis

case .’” Id. (c i t i n g Ra mi re z- Du razo v . I

NS , 794 F.2d 491, 499- 500 (9th Cir. 1986)). 3 Al though r ecognizi ngthat an inef fec tive assistance claim is cog nizable in imm igr ation proce eding s, we have y et to decide whether such a c laim sup p o rt s eq u i t able toll ing of the 90-da

y filing de adline applica

ble to motions t o reope n. See Scorteanu , 339 F.3d at 413 (noting that even though the parties c oncede d that a statutory filing period “could be subjec t to equitable tolling due to . . . ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel,” the c ourt nee d not decide that issue beca use the pe titioner “fa iled to prove e ntitlement to equitable relief ”). The circ uits as a

whole ar e divided on this issue. See Panova-B ohannan v. Gonzales , No. 04-60540, 157 Fe d. Appx. 706, 707 n.6 (5th Cir. Dec ember 9, 20 05 ) ( c oll e c tin gc a se s) . B e c a us e Weerasi nghe fa ile d to pr ov e that he wo uld be e nti tle d to equitable r elief if it we re a vailable, we need not de cide whether the 90-day limit ations period in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c) (7)( C)(i) is subject to equitable tolling

. See Scorteanu , 339 F.3d at 413.7

A l iti g ant s e e kin gto i nv ok e e qu ita ble tol lin g mus t pr ov e that he a c te d w ithdu e dil ig e nc e in pursuing his r ights. See Ba ldw in C ou nty W e lc om e Ctr . v . B ro wn , 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984) (“ One who fails to a ct diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to e x cuse that lack o f d i l ige nce.” ); An dr e ws v . O rr , 851 F.2d 146, 151 (6th Cir. 1988) (noting t hat one of the e quitable tolling fa ctors is “dilige nce in pur suing one ’s rig hts”). We agree with the BIA that Weera singhe and his prese nt attorney failed to a ct with due dilige nce in pur su i n g t h e m o t i o n to reope n. In Marc h 2003, Perez withdrew a s counsel and r eturne d Weera sin gh e’ s fi l e; soon there afte r Muchnicki e ntere d an

a pp e ara nc e a s We e ra sin g he ’s c ou ns e l. I t is thu s c le ar t

hat by Ap ri l 20 03 Mu c hn ic ki h a d a c c e ss t o W e e r a s i n g h e ’ s f

i l e an d th e b r i e f s u

b m i t t e d b y P e r e z t o th e B IA

. It i s a l s o un d i s p u t e d th atth e B IA did not issue its decision until J uly 14, 2003. We theref

ore knowthat Muchnicki had acc ess to the contents of Per ez’s brief at least three months be fore the BIA’s decision. I f he c onsidered Per ez’s brief to be insufficient, he could have filed a suppleme ntal brief w ith the BIA. SeeBIA Prac . Man. Ch. 4.6(g )(ii) (pe rmitting supplemental br iefs base d on new arguments outside the orig inal briefing schedule ). Alternatively , Muchnicki could have filed a mot ion to reconsider or a motion to reope n soon

a ft e r t he B I A’ s July 14 de c isi on . 8 U. S.C. § 12 29 a (c )( 6) (g ov e rn ing mot ion s to re c on sid e r) ; 8 U .S. C. § 1 22 9a (c )( 7) (g ov e rn ingmot ion s to re op e n) . Be c a us e he kn e w that Per e z’s B I A br ie f did no t r a ise the I J’s r e fu sa l to a dmi t corrob or atin gdo c ume nts , h e sh ou ld h ave e xpe c te d th at th is C ourt wo uld ref use to a d dr e s s th is ar g u me n t, f in d in gth at W e e r a s in g h e f a il e d to e xh a u s t h is a dmi n is tr ative

reme dies. See 8 U. S.C. § 12 52 (d ) (s tatin gthat a c ourt may re vie w a fi na l or de r o f r e mov a l on ly if the petitioner h a s e xh a

u s te d a ll available a dminist rative r emedies) . Weera singhe could have avoided this jurisdi ctional problem by filing a motion to rec onsider or a motion to reopen immediate ly afte rW eer as i ng he al s o ar gu es t hat t he Scor t eanu d e c isio n ind ic a te s tha t t h e p e tit io n e r’s d ili g e n c e in p u rs u ing his 4 mot i on t o r eope n i s “ mea s u r ed f r om t h e t i me of

t h e al i en ’ s a ct u al n ot i ce of t h e i n ef f ec t i v e as s i s t an ce . ” Reg ar dl es s of whe t her t hi s i s a pr op er i nt er pret at i on of t he Scor t eanu d e c isio n -- w h ic h is ex tre m e ly d o u b tful - - we no te tha t i t woul d not ch ang e t he out com e i n t hi s ca s e. W eer as i ng he and h i s ne w coun s el ha d act ual not i ce of P er ez’ s al l ege d i nef f ect i ve as s i s t anc e wh en t hey r evi ewed h i s B I A bri ef i n 2003 , an d t hu s t hey f i l ed t he mo t i on t o re op en approxi mat el y t wo y ear s af t er r ece i vi ng ac t ual not i ce. T hi s conduc t ce r t ai nl y does not demo ns t r at e di l i gen ce. 8 the B I A’s orde r wa s issued. Instead, he chose to appea l the BI A’s decision to this Court, rather than to file a motion to reope n. The fact that the B I A summarily aff irmed the I J ’s dec ision did notrelieve Weera singhe of his timely filing oblig ation. See Bal v. Gonzales , No. 06-3179, 2006 WL3539297,

at 2 ( 6th Cir . D e c e mbe r 7 , 2 00 6) (n oti ngthat a “ B I A s umm ary

a ff ir manc e [is] a

fi na l a pp e a la ble

remova l order” and a pe titioner must “file a timely petition for re view of that decision”). Weera singhe further

contends that the BI

A improperly measure d diligenc e from the time the

case was orig inally

befor e the B I A in J uly

2003 rathe r than the date of this Court’s decision in May 2005, specific ally

noting that “the g rounds for the motion to reopen we re c reated by this Court’s May 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 decision.” B ut this C ourt’s May 2005 decision did not cre ate the grounds for Weera singhe ’s motion to reopen; rather, Pere z’s alleg e d in e f f e c ti v e assistance , which occ urre d when he filed t h e BI A b rief, “ cre ated” the g rounds for the motion to reopen. While Muchnicki did not know the pre ci s e ef

fe cts of Pere z’s alleg ed inef fec tive assistance until May 2005, he knew

of the conduct c omprising this inef fec tive assistance in 2003 and could have filed his motion to reopen at that time. We there fore reje ct W eer asing he’s attempt to shift the basis of his motion to reopen fr om the alleg ed inef

fec tive assistance in 2003 to this Court’s decision in 2005. 4

III. Conclusi on For the f o re go i ngrea sons, we find no a buse of discr etion in the BIA’s dismissal of Weera singhe ’s motion to reopen, a nd we de ny

the petition for re view.