NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0341n.06 F iled: May 15, 2007 No. 06-3421 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

SYRJ A MUHA M E T I a n d VASI L I QI M U H A M E T I, Pe tit ion e rs , v. AL BERTO GONZ AL ES, A ttorney Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF A N ORDER OF THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges RO GE RS, Cir c uit

Judg e . Sy

rj a a nd Va sil iqi Muhame ti, tw o A lba nia n c iti zen s, pe tit ion

thi s court to re view of the Boa rd of Immigration Appeal s’ denial of their untimely

motion to reopen, wh ic h w a s b a se d o n c la ims of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. B e c a

us e the B I A d id n ot a

bu se its discretion whe n it denied the Muhame tis’ motion t o reope n, we de ny the petition for re view.

On Fe bruar

y 22, 2001, an immigr ation judge (I J ) de n ie d th e M uhametis’ asy

lum applications following a hea

ring on the merits. The BIA dismiss ed the Muhametis’ appe al on Dec ember 4, 2002. The Muhametis did not file a timely motion to reope n with the BI A or a ti mely petition for re viewNo. 06-3421

Muhame ti v. Gonzales

- 2 - of the B I A’s dec ision in t his court. The Muhametis were repr esente d befor e the I J and the B I A by Patrick Salley , whose lawlicense ha s since bee n revoke d by the State of Michig an.
On Dec ember

12, 2005, the Muhametis filed a motion to reopen wit h t h e BI A, alleging ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel beca use Salley

failed to file a

petition for re view with this court following the B I A’s dismissal of their appe al. Acc ording to the motion to reope n, Salley ’s fa ilure to f ile a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w r e su lte d in

a los t op po rt

un ity to s e e k r e view fro m this c ourt a nd a los t op po rt un ity to a dju st the ir

status ba se d o n I -1 30 Al ie n Re la tiv e Pe tit ion s, fi le d b y the Muhame tis ’ son, which we re a

pproved by

the Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

in J une of 2003.

The B I A denied the M u h am et i ’s unt imely motion to reopen, conc luding that the 90- day de a dli ne fo r fili ng a

mot ion to r e op e n w a s n ot s ub

je c t to e qu ita

ble tol lin g be c a

us e the Muhame tis failed to a ct with due diligenc e. The BIA noted that the Michig an Attorney Discipline Boa rd re port

conce rning Salley ’s re prese ntation of the Muhame tis was dated Ma y 27, 2005, but that it took another seven months from the da te of the r eport be fore the Muhametis filed their motion to reope n. The B I A also conc luded that the Muha m et i s d id not establish that prior counsel’s f ailure to file a petition for re view pre

judiced them, pointing out that the Muha metis did not argue in their motion to reope n that the prior de cisions of the I J or the B I A wer e er roneous.
Th e Mu hame tis fi le d a

tim e ly pe tit ion fo r r e vie w w iththi s c ourt
. This court re views the B I A’s denia l of a motion to reopen f or abuse of discre tion. Sako v. G o nzales , 434 F .3 d 8 57 , 8 63 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . Wh e n “ de te rm ini ng wh e the r t he [B I A] a

bu se d it sNo. 06-3421

Muhame ti v. Gonzales

Although the Muhametis’ brief states that the Michig an Attorne y Grieva nce Commission 1 acknow ledg ed the g rieva

nce f iled ag ainst Sa l l ey o n December 4, 2003, there is no support in the rec o rd for this contention and the decision of the A ttorney Discipline Boa

rd states that the f

ormal complaint ag ainst Salley

was filed on F ebrua

ry 1, 2005. - 3 - discretion, this Court must decide whethe r the de nial of [ the] motion to reopen . . . wa s made without

a ratio na l e xplanatio n, ine xpli c a b l y d e p a r t e d f ro m e sta bli sh e d p oli c ie s, or

re ste d o n a

n im pe rm iss ibl e basi s such as invidious discrimination ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or

g roup.” Id. (citation omitted). G e n e r a l l y , m o t i o n s t o r e o p e n , e s p e c i a l l y i n i m m i g r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , a r e d i s f a v o r e d , a n d

t h e B IA has broad discretion to de ny such motions. IN S v . D oh e rty , 5 02 U. S. 3 14 , 3 23 (1 99 2) . L e g a l a sp e c ts of cla ims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel in deporta t i o n p ro ce eding s are revie wed de novo. Hu ic oc he a- Go me

z v . I NS , 237 F.3d 696, 699 ( 6th Cir. 2001).

Be cause the Muhametis have failed to establish that they acte d with due dil ige nce in f iling their motion to reopen, the B I A did n o t ab use its discretion in ref using to a ccor d equitable tolling to the 90-day filing deadline or in de ny ing the motion. The Muhametis state in their brie f that they did not learn of the BIA’s denial of their appea l until J uly 6, 2003, long a fter the 30-day deadline f

or fi lin g a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w a

nd the 90 -d a y de a dli ne fo r f

ili ng a mot ion to r e op e n. De sp ite thi s f

a c t, the Muhametis claim that it did not become c lear that they neede d new counsel until October of 2003. After obtaining new counsel, the Muhametis soug ht r elief in this court on Febr uary 12, 2004, but this court, on April 30, 2004, denied their motion to file an untimely petition for re view. See Mu ha me ti v . A sh c ro

ft , N o. 04 -3 18 8. Th e Mu hame tis did no t f ile a g ri e va nc e a g a ins t Sa lle y

un til Fe bruar y 1, 2005, and did not file their motion to reope n with the BIA until De cembe r 12, 2005.

1No. 06-3421

Muhame ti v. Gonzales

Although the Muhametis appea r t o support their arg ument that they acte d with due dilige nce 2 by pointing to the unsucc essful attempt to have this court allow an untimely petition for re view, the filing in this court doe s not lead to the conc lusion that they acte d with due diligenc e. Eve n assuming that an uns uc c e ssf

ul a tte mpt to se c ur e re lie f in this c ourt su pp or ts a co nc lus ion that one a c te d w ith d u e d i l i g e n c e , t h i s c o u rt i s s u e d i t s o r d e r d e n y i n g r e l i e f o n A p r i l 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d y e t th e mot ion to reope n was not filed until Dec ember of 2005. Ther e is no explanation for this significa nt time ga p betwee n the orde r of this court a nd the filing of the motion to reopen. T h e p a rti e s d o n o t a d d r e s s th e M u h a me ti s ’ c o mp li a n c e w it h th e r e qu ir e me n ts of In re 3 Lozada , 19 I . & N . Dec . 637 (B .I .A. 1988). Lozada ’s re quirements fo r a motion to reope n based on claims of inef

fec tive assistance of counse l a re: (1) that a

motion to reopen base d on ineffe ctive - 4 - B a se d o n th e re c or d, the Muhame tis a pp e a r to ha ve be e n aw a re of Sa lle y ’s fa ilure s in

e a rl y 2004 at the latest a

nd they had secur ed new counsel by that point. The BIA was quite g ener ous when it s e t th e da te fr om w hic h th e Muhame tis sh ou ld h a ve a c te d w ithdil ig e nc e a s May 27 , 2 00 5, the da te of the Michig an Attorney Discipline Boa rd’s decision. Using the BIA’s timeline, the re is a g ap of almost seven months—betwee n the May 27 repor t and the Dec ember 12 motion to reope n—that the Muhametis have not attempted to expl ain. Although the Muhametis asser t that “they

did not have the mon e y , k

no wl e dg e or

a bil ity to p ur su e the ir

c la im unti l se c ur ingthe a ssist ance of the [De tr oit Merc y ] L aw School,” a

nd that they

have dilig ently

pursued their

claim, there is no ex pl anation provided for

the g ap bet we en s ecur ing ne w counse l, which had a ppare ntly been a ccomplished by F e b r u a r y o f 2 0 0 4 , a n d t h e f

i l i n g o f t h e m o t i o n t o r e o p e n . O n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e p a n e l , t h e B IA did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

c on c lud ing th at the Mu hame tis fa ile d to a c t w iththe re qu isi te diligenc e. 2

I n any event, the Muha

metis have not e stablished that prior counsel’s failure to file a pe tition for r eview in this court r esulted in prejudice

. The Muhame tis assert that they have e stablished the 3No. 06-3421

Muhame ti v. Gonzales

assistance of counse l be supported by an af fidavit detailing counsel’s f ailings; (2) that counsel be informed of

the alleg ations; a

nd (3) that the motion shows that disciplinary char g es have been f

iled wi th t he a pp ro pr ia te a

uth or ity . 1 9 I . & N. De c . a t 63 9; Sako , 434 F.3d at 863. The G overnme nt does not arg ue that the Muhametis have fa iled to comply with the proce dural re quirements of Lozada. - 5 - re qu isi te pr e

jud ic e be c a

us e , ha d Sall e y fi le d a time ly pe tit ion fo r re vie w w iththi s c ourt , th e y wo uld have rec eived additional revie w of their asy lum claim and they would have be en elig ible for r elief be c a us e of the ir a pp ro ve d I -1 30 s.
Al tho ug h th e Mu hame tis po int ou t th a t th e y

los t an opp or

tun ity fo r re vie w o f t

he ir c la ims in this court when Salley failed to file a petition for review, the loss of a r ight to appe al, standing alone, does not constitute prejudice

. See Ljucov ic v. Gonzale s , 144 Fe d. Appx. 500, 504-05 (6th Ci r. 2005) (“[T]he loss of a rig ht to appeal the B I A’s dec ision to this c ourt . . . do[es] not constitute prejudice

u n d er t h i s ci rc u i t ’s l aw . ”) (c i t i n g Huicoche a-Gome z v . I NS , 237 F.3d 696, 699-700 (6th Cir. 2001)). Th e Muhame tis mus t e sta bli sh that but f

or Sa lle y ’s fa ilure to f

ile a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w, the y

wo uld be entitled to r emain in the United States. Huicoche a-Gome z , 2 37 F .3 d a t 69 9- 70 0. Th e Mu hame tis ’

m o t i o n t o re o p en d i d

n o tcl ai m t h at t h e IJ o r t h e B I A e rr ed i n an y wa y i n t h e o ri gi n al p ro c ee d i n gs

a nd the y have no t shown tha t a time ly pe tit ion fo r r e vie w w iththi s c ourt wo uld have be e n s uc c e ssf

ul. I n li g ht o f t

he Mu hame tis ’ f

a ilure to a rgue that a n a

pp e a l w ou ld h a ve be e n s uc c e ssf ul, the B I A d id not a buse its discr etion in c oncluding that the Muhametis failed to e stablish the r equisite prejudice

. Th e Muhame tis ’ atte mpt

to e sta bli shpreju di ce ba se d o n th e a pp ro va l of

the ir I -1 30 vis a petitions li kewise fails beca use t here is no connec tion betwee n the failure t o file a petition for re view and the late r appr oval of their vi sa petit ions. As pointed out by the BI A, t he I -130 petit ions wer e notNo. 06-3421

Muhame ti v. Gonzales

- 6 - a pp ro ve d unti l June 18 , 2 00 3, fi ve mon ths a ft e r a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w sho uld have be e n fil e d w iththi s court. The approve d visa petitions would n o t h ave been in the a dminist rative r ecor d revie wed by this court had a pe tition for reviewbeen f iled and thus would not have provided a basis for this court to r ever se the decision of the B I A. See 8 U.S. C. § 1252 (b )( 4) (A ) (s ta tin g that the c ourt of a pp e a ls the “ sh a ll d e c ide the pe tit ion on ly on the a dmi nis tr ativ e re c or d o n w hic h th e or de r o f r e mov a l is ba se d” ). Th e Mu hame tis have sim ply fa ile d to est a

bli sh a ny c on ne c tio n b e tw e e n Sa lle y ’s fa ilure to file a pe tition for reviewand the Muhameti’s visa petitions.

For the fore g oing r easons, we deny the petition for re view.