N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ELIA VIC TOR INA B ENAVIDEZ, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-70109 Age n c y No. A094 454 970
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R EINHAR

DT, TASHIM A, a

nd C LIFTON, C i rc uit Judge s. C e lia Vic t orina B e navide z , a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa l va dor, pe t itions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of he r m o tion to
re ope n . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny B e nav ide z ’ s pe tition. 

# FIL E D JUL 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.W e re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n for a

buse of disc re tion. Singh v . Gonzale

s , 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th C i r. 2007). “ The de c ision of theB IA should bele ft undisturbe d unle ss it is a rbitra ry , irrationa l, or c ontra

ry to la w.” Fe ng Gui Lin v . Holde r , 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting He v . Gonzale s , 501 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th C ir. 2007)). A pa rty m ust file a m otion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e dings no la

te r tha n 90 da y s a fte r the date on whic h the fina l a dm inistra tion de c ision wa s re nde re d. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2). B e navide z file d he r m o tion to re ope n on July 5, 2011,
ne arly four y e ars a fte r the dat e on whic h the B IA re nde re d its de c ision. W e hav e he ld, howe ve r, tha t in c e rta in c irc um sta

nc e s, the B IA should toll the 90- da y filing pe riod for a

pe titione r se e king to re ope n on the ba sis of ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l. Singh v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1182, 1185-86 (9th C ir. 2004). For e quita

ble tolling due

to ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of c ounse l to a

pply , a pe titione r m ust, inte r alia , a c t with due dilige nc e in pursuing her c la i m . Id . at 1186. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n it de nie d B e nav ide z ’ s pe tition for fa iling to e xe rc ise due dilige nc e . In a sse s sing whe t he r a pe t itione r e xe rc ise d

due dilige n c e , we m

u st c onside r thre e fa c tors: (1) “ if (and whe n) a re a sona ble pe rson in pe titione r’ s position would suspe c t the spe c i fic fraud or e rror unde rly i ng he r m otion to re o pe n ” ; (2) “ whe the r pe titione r took re a sona b le ste ps to inve stiga

te the 2suspe c te d fra ud or e rror, or, if pe titione r is ignora nt of c ounse l’ s shortc om ings, whe the r pe titione r m a de re a sona ble e fforts to pursuere lie f” ; a nd (3) “ w he n the tolling period should e nd; tha t is, whe n pe titione r de finitive ly le a rn[e d ] of the ha

rm re sulting from c o unse l’ s de fic ie nc y .” Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l c i tations a nd quota tion m arks om i tte d). B e c a use B e n avide z fa ile d to spe c ify whe n she sta rte d ha ving trouble

c om m unic a ting with her form e r a ttorne y and whe n she first m e t with he r c urre nt a ttorne y , the B IA wa s una

ble to de te rm i ne whe n

B e navide z ha d re a son to be suspic ious of he r form e r c ounse l’ s c onduc t. As a

re sult, it wa s im

possiblefor the B IA to de te rm ine whe t he r, a fte r having re a son to be suspic ious, B e navide z “ m a de re a sona ble e fforts to pursue
re lie f until shele arne d of c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive ne ss.” 1 Id . at 682. Furthe rm ore , be c a use B e navide z ’ s m otion doe s not sta te whe n she de finitive l y le a rne d of the

1 The disse nt c onte n ds tha t “ [w] e c a nnot a s k for m o re ” of B e navide z , e ve n while c o nc e d ing tha t she “ doe s not spe c ify

e x a c t ly whe n she be ga

n to suspe c t that he r prior attorne y

ha d re n de re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l.” B ut a s pa rt of he r due dilige nc e showing, B e navide z wa s re quire d to m ake the pre dic a te showing of whe n she “ de finitive ly le arn[e d] of the ha

rm re sulting from

c ounse l’ s de fic ie nc y .” Av agy an , 646 F.3d a t 679. This she

fa ile d to do. 3a lle ge d ine ffe c t i ve a ssista nc e of he r form e r a ttorne y , it wa s im possiblefor the B IA to c a lc u late whe n the tolling pe riod e nde d
. 2 PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

2 B e c a

use the due dilige nc e issue is dispositive , we do not re a c h a ny of the o the r issue s ra ise d by

the pa rtie s. 4Be nav ide

z v . Ly nc h, 12-70109 R e inha rdt, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: The m a jority c onc lude s tha

t B e navide z fa ile d to e xe rc ise due dilige n c e in pursuing he r c la i m

of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l. To be sure , B e navide z doe s not spe c ify e xa c tly

whe n she be ga n to suspe c t tha

t he r prior attorne y

ha d
re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. He r de c la ra tions show, howe

ve r, tha t
onc e she be ga

n ha ving trouble c om

m unic a ting with her form e r a ttorne y (and the re fore to suspe c t ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l) she c o nta c te d he r c urre nt
a ttorne y . 1 All the tim e prior to tha t c onta c t should be

e quita bly tolle d be c a

u se she
re a s ona bly re lie d on he r a ttorne y ’ s a ssura

nc e s tha t the B IA e rre d whe n

it de nie d he r a ppe a l a nd tha t he wa s pursuing a

n a ppe a l to this C ourt. Se eMe jia-He rnande

z
v . Holde r , 633 F.3d 818, 826 (9th C ir. 2011). Following B e navide z ’ s m e e ting with her ne w attorne y at or a bout the e nd of 2010, it is c le ar that the ne w attorne y fa ile d for a

pproxim a te l y se ve n m onths to file
a m otion to re ope n for re a sons tha t m ay or m ay not ha

ve be e n justifia ble
. First, he ha d trouble obta ining thec o m ple te file from

B e n avide z ’ s form e r c ounse l e ve n though it wa s his own form e r la w pa rtne r who ha d se rve d in tha t c a pa c ity
. 

# FIL E D JUL 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1 For the purpose s of a

m otion to re ope n, the B IA (a nd this C ourt) m

ust a c c e pt a ll fa c t

u a l a lle g ations in supporting de c l ara tions a s true unle ss it finds “ those fa c ts to be inhe re ntly unbe lie va

ble
. ” Ghahre m ani v . Gonzale s , 498 F.3d 993, 999 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d).Se c ond, he suffe re d a n injury tha t le ft him una ble to work for roughly a

m onth. In
any c a s e , the re is no re a son to c onc lude that B e navide z wa s at fa ult for a ny of this de la y , whe the r e xc usa

ble or not. Nothing the

re fore pre c lude s B e navide z from filing a se c ond m otion to re ope n ba se d on he r ne wattorne y ’ s fa ilure to file a tim e ly
m otion to re o pe n . W he n B e navide z be c am e suspic ious of he r prior c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e , she
c onta c te d a

nothe r a ttorne y

and followe d his a d

vic e . W e c annot a sk for m ore . The
unne c e ssa

ry prolife ra tion of a

ppe a ls suc h a s will sure ly oc c ur he re is not a de sira ble wa y to im ple m e nt a n a lre a dy dubious sy ste m of e nforc ing our im m igration la

ws. I re spe c tfully

disse nt.