N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT JAVIER B AEZA-C ASTR O, Nos. 11-72520, 12-70520, 12-71120 AKA Jua n Antonio B a e z a , AKA Sm ile y

B a e z a , Age n c y No. A074-111-136 Pe titione r, v. M EM OR A NDUM * ER IC H. HOLDER , JR ., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. On Pe t ition for Re v ie w of Orde rs of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm itte d August 5, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVERM AN a n d WARDLAW , C i rc u it Judge s, a nd C EDAR B AUM , ** Distric t

Judge . Javie r B a e z a -C a s tro pe t itions for re v ie w of thre e B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) orde rs, e a c h de ny ing a m otion to re ope n

re m ova l proc e e dings 

# FIL ED SEP 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d m ay not be c ite d to or by the c ourts of this c irc u it e xc e pt a s m a y be provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M iria m Goldm an C e da

rba um , Se nior Distric t

Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion. 1be c a

use of ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounse l . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we grant the pe t i tions for re vie w of B a e z a ’ s first a nd se c ond m o tions to re ope n. B a e z a ’ s first a

ttorne y , Nic hola s De Pe nto, m i sse d the de a dline to file an a pplic ation for c a

n c e l lation of re m ova l by

se ve ra l we e ks. The IJ de nie d B a e z a ’ s c anc e lla tion a pplic ation on se ve ra l grounds, inc luding tha t it wa s ine xc usa

bly untim e l y . B a e z a ’ s se c ond a ttorne y , M aria

na Ha nna , suc c e s sfully

a ppe a le d the IJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t B a e z a ha d be e n c onvic te d of a

n a ggravate d fe lony , whic h would have othe rwise m a de B a e z a ine ligiblefor c anc e lla

tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a )(3). Howe ve r, Hanna fa ile d to a

p pe a l the IJ’ s finding tha

t the a pplic ation wa s untim e ly , a

n d the B IA a ffirm e d the unc ha lle nge d finding tha t the c anc e lla

tion a pplic ation ha d be e n a

ba ndone d . Following the

B IA’ s de c ision, B a e z a

wa s re m ove d from

the Unite d

State s. Approxim ate ly

four y e ars lat e r, B a e z a , through a third a ttorne y , Ja

m ahl Ke rse y , file d a

m otion to re o pe n the re m ova l proc e e dings, a lle ging ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l only by

De Pe nto. TheB IA de nie d the m otion a s tim e -barre d and a lso he ld tha

t B a e z a ha d not c om

plie d with oneof the proc e dura l re quire m e nts of M atte r of Loz a da , 19 I. & N. De c . 637 (B IA 1988). The B IA note d tha t it wa s

“ unc l e ar” why B a e z a

did not alle ge ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e a g a inst Ha

nna , be c a use 2“ the only

fa c tor . . . pre ve nting [B a e z a ] from pursuing a

c la im for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l wa s the fa ilure to file a tim e ly a pplic ation for re lie f, a

finding whic h M s. Hanna did not c ha lle nge .” B a e z a ne xt file d, pro se , a

se c ond m otion to re ope n. He a l le ge d tha t Ke rse y ha d him se lf provide d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l for, inte r alia , fa i ling to argue that Ha

nna h a d provide d ine ffe c tive a s sista n c e of c ounse l. B a e z a a lso a ddre s se d in his brie f num e rous fa c ts re late d to Ha nna ’ s re pre se ntation, inc luding that Ha nna ne ve r told him

the outc om e or ba sis of theB IA’ s de c ision in his a ppe a l. The B IA de nie d this se c ond m otion to re ope n a s tim e - and num be r-barre d . B a e z a the n file d, pro se , a

third m otion to re ope n, a lle ging ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l a ga inst Ha

nna . The B IA de nie d the m otion a s tim e - and num be r-barre d. W e find tha

t the B IA a

buse d its disc re tion in deny ing B a e z a ’ s se c o nd m otion to re o pe n a s untim e l y . In re a c hing this c onc lusion, the B IA sim ply re lie d on its e arlie r finding tha

t B a e z a ha d not a de quate l y e xpla ine d the re a son for his de la y in filing the

first m otion to re ope n. The B IA did not m e aningfully a ddre ss B a e z a ’ s indepe nde nt ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c la im a ga inst Ke rse y

for his fa ilure to bring wha

t would ha

ve be e n a suc c e ssful ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c la im a ga inst Hanna . The B IA a lso did not ac knowle d ge B a e z a ’ s e xpla n ation – whic h Ke rse y fa ile d to offe r – re ga

rding his de la

y in bringing the

first m otion.

3The se c ond m otion to re ope n m a de c le ar that B a e z a ’ s de l ay in bringing the

first m otion to re ope n wa s itse lf c a u se d by Ha nna ’ s de fic ie nt re pre se ntation. Se e Ava gy an v. Holde r, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ If the ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of a n a lie n’ s c ounse l pre ve nts him from tim e ly filing a m otion to re ope n, c ounse l ha s pre ve nte d the a l ie n from re a sona bly pre se nting his c a se and de nie d him due proc e ss.” ). Ha

nna ne ve r inform e d B a e z a a b out the outc o m e of his a ppe a l. Afte r his re m ova l, B a e z a

c a lle d Ha

nna ’ s offic e from

M e xic o to “ re c e ive an e xpla nation a nd instruc tions” re ga

rding his im

m igration proc e e dings. Hewa s told by Ha nna ’ s a ssista

nt tha t he c ould re -e nte r the Unite d Stat e s using his le g a l ide n tific ation doc um e nts. Afte r following this a dvic e , B a e z a

a ga in c a lle d Ha

nna to sc he dule a m e e ting, but Ha nna ’ s a ssista

nt told him “ not to worry ,” tha t Ha nna

“ will ha ndle a ll the m atte rs,” an d tha t “ t he re is no ne e d

for a m e e ting.” Ha

nna did not re turn his phone

c a lls a nd wa s not a

t the offic e whe n B a e z a

we nt to m e e t he r the re . Fina lly , he wa s “ a ssure d no othe r [i] m m igrat ion issue s re m a ine d pe nding.” That Ha nna ha d e ffe c tive ly

a ba ndone d B a e z a

is furthe r e vide nc e d by the fa c t tha t she did not file

any m otion to se e k re lie f from the B IA’ s de c ision – suc h a s a m otion to re o pe n b a se d on De Pe nto’ s ine ffe c t ive a s sista nc e . B a e z a

wa s de p rive d of the opportunity

to pre se nt a

rgum e nt in a

tim e ly m otion to re ope n, or othe rwise , and wa s the re fore pre

judic e d. Se e Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d a t 887 (pre s um

ption

4of pre

judic e whe re attorne y

“ fa ile d to tim e ly

file the m otion to re o p e n tha t wa s a pre re quisitefor a

pply ing for a djustm e nt of sta tus” ). B a e z a

a lso would ha

ve pla u sibly be e n e ntitle d to re l i e f, a s he would ha ve the n be e n e ligiblefor c anc e lla tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b. The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t B a e z a wa s on notic e of his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c la im a ga inst De Pe nto a s e arly a s Fe brua

ry 2007, whe n he he ard the IJ e xpla in tha

t the a pplic ation wa s untim e ly . Howe ve r, B a e z a a lso he a rd the IJ e xplic itly sta te tha t B a e z a wa s “ re pre se nte d by

c om pe te nt c ounse l.” This sta te m e nt would ha ve le ft a re a sona b l e pe rson in B a e z a ’ s situa tion with the im

p re ssion tha

t the m ista ke did not rise

to the le ve l of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e . The gove rnm e nt a lso argue s tha

t B a e z a wa s on notic e whe n he wa s re m ove d . Howe v e r, the untim e line ss of his a pplic ation wa s not thesole ba sis for theIJ’ s de c ision, a nd in fa c t, wa s not e ve n the issue tha

t Ha nna brie fe d on a

ppe a l to theB IA. B e c a

use Hanna

ne ve r inform e d B a e z a of the B IA’ s de c ision – e ve n a fte r he inquire d a b out the sta

tus of his c a se – he c ould not ha ve known tha

t his re m ova l turne d sole l y on the fa c t tha

t De Pe n to ha d not tim e ly

file d the a

pplic at ion for c anc e lla

tion. A pe titione r ne e d only a c t with “ due ” or “ re a sona ble ” dilige n c e in disc ove ring his c la im , “ in the c onte xt of his . . . pa

rtic ula r c irc um sta

nc e s.” Ava g y an, 646 F.3d a t 679. “ W e c annot pe na liz e ” B a e z a

“ for re a sona

b ly re ly ing on thea dvic e of c ounse l, e ve n if

5that

c ounse l turns out to ha

ve be e n inc om

pe te nt or pre dat ory .” Id. In sum , the B IA’ s de c ision to deny B a e z a ’ s se c ond m otion to re ope n wa s a n a buse o f disc re tion. It follows, the n, tha t the ba s is for the B IA’ s de nia l of the first m otion to re o pe n a s untim e l y is unde rm ine d. C f. R a y v. Gonz a le s , 439 F.3d 582, 590-91 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ [O] ur finding of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e re ga rding the se c o nd m otion to re o pe n ne c e ssa rily unde rm ine s the va lidity of the B IA’ s de c ision to de ny tha t first m otion on proc e dura l grounds.” ). B e c a use we hold tha

t the first m otion to re ope n should betre ate d a s tim e ly file d , we re a c h two a dditional c onc lusions ma de by the B IA in de ny ing tha

t m otion. First, the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t B a e z a ’ s first m otion to re ope n did not c om ply with Loz a d a

is inc onsiste nt with our pre c e de nt. The Loz a da re q uire m e nts are n ot sa c rosa

nc t, “ e spe c ia lly

whe n the re c ord shows a

c le ar an d obvious c a se of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e .” R odrigue z -La

riz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th C ir. 2002). W e have he l d tha

t Loz a da c om plia nc e is unne c e ssa

ry whe re an attorne y ’ s ine ffe c tive ne s s is de m onstra te d by fa iling to tim

e ly file an a p plic ation. Se e id.; C a stillo-Pe re z v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th C ir. 2000). Ne i the r judgm e nt or disc re tion is involve d whe n a n attorne y fa ils to m e e t

a de a dline , a

n d suc h a fa ilure is a c le a r de fa ult. Se c ond, the B IA e rre d in a ppa re ntly spe c ulat ing or a ssum ing tha t B a e z a le arne d the outc om e of his B IA a ppe a l shortly

a fte r its de c ision. B a e z a ’ s 6a ffidav it submi tte d on the first m otion to re ope n – dra fte d by Ke rse y and whic h B a e z a sta te s he did not c om

ple t e ly unde rsta nd – wa s va gue on this point, sta ting only tha t B a e z a “ late r” le arne d tha

t he would ha

v e be e n e l igiblefor c anc e l lation of re m ova l but for theuntim e line ss of his a pplic ation. This only

supports B a e z a ’ s c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e a ga inst Ke rse y , give n the im porta nc e of e xpla ining the re a sons for thede l ay e d filing. B e c a use B a e z a re pre se nte d him se lf on both the se c ond a nd third m otions to re ope n , he c annot a

rgue tha t ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e wa rrants tolling the

tim e - or num be r-bar for his third motion to re ope n. In a ny e ve nt, the pe t ition for re vie w of the d e nia l of his third motion is moot be c a use we grant re vie w of his other pe titions, which se e k

the sa m e re lie f. C f. C a stillo-Pe re z , 212 F.3d a t 528. The pe titions in Nos. 11-72520 a nd 12-70520 a

re G RANT E D . W e re m and to the B IA to c onside r a s tim e ly B a e z a ’ s m otion to re o pe n his re m ova l proc e e dings ba se d on the ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l provide d by De Pe nto. The pe tition in No. 12-71120 is DE NIE D a s m oot.

7