FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 22, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 07- 11841 & 07- 13365 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 468- 582 J O S E E F R A I N M E N D E Z , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

D e c i s i ons of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju l y 22, 2008) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J os e E f r a i n M e nde z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , appe a l s f

r om the2

B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( B I A ’s ) d e c is io n s d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n h is r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs a nd f urthe rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rtha tor de r . T he B I A , in its d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to r e o p e n a n dm o tio n to r e c o n s id e r , h e ld (1) M endez’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on w as nu m er i ca l l y barre d, (2) M endez had f a i l e d t o pr oduc e a nye vi de nc e tha tw oul d a l t e ri t s de t e rm i na t i on he ha d not d e m o n s tr a te d e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s s o a s to e x c u s e th e la te f ilin g o f h is a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n , a n d ( 3 ) M e n d e z h a df a ile dto m e e t h is b u r d e n o f p r o o f in e s tab lis h in g th a t, b u t f

o rh is a tto rn e y ’s in e f

f e c tiv e n e s s , th e o u tc o m e o f h is proceedi ng s w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . B oth M endez and the G ov ernm entas se rt s e ve r a l i s s ue s on appe a l , w hi c h w e a ddr e s s i n turn. A f t e rr e vi e w , w e de ny M en d ez’ s p et i t i o n s. I. T h e G o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s th e r e is n o F if th A m e n d m e n t d u e p r o c e s s r ig h t to e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l i n i m m i gr a t i on c a s e s , a nd the f a i l ur e t o r e c e i ve r e l i e f tha ti s pur e l ydi s c r e t i ona ry , s uc h a s a s y l um , doe s nota m ountt o ade pr i va t i on of al i be rtyi nt e r e s ta nd, a c c or di ngl y , doe s notpr ovi de aba s i s f ora n i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m. I n D akane v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 3 9 9 F . 3 d1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ), a case w h e r e a n a lie n s o u g h t r e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l in th e f

o rm o f a s y lu m , w e h e ld“[ i]t is w e ll e s tab lis h e d in th is C ir c u it th a t a n a lie n in c iv il d e p o rta tio n p r o c e e d in g s , w h ile3

note nt i t l e d t o aS i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l , ha s the c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght u n d e rth e F if

th A m e n d m e n t D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e to af u n d a m e n ta llyf

a irh e a r in g to ef f ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l w here coun se l has bee n o bt ai ned. ” W e have further hel d that , w hi l e “ fa i l ure t o rec ei ve re l i ef thati s purel y di sc re t i on ary i n n ature does no tam ou ntt o a depri vat i on of a l i berty i nt er es t , ” Me j i a R odr i guezv . R e no , 178 F . 3d 1139, 1146 ( 11th C i r . 1999) , a l i e ns do ha ve apr ot e c t e d i nt e r e s ti n pe t i t i oni ng f o ra s y lu m , H

a itia n R e fu g e e C tr . v . Sm ith , 6 7 6 F .2 d1 0 2 3 , 1 0 3 8 ( 5 th C ir . U n it B 1 9 8 2 ) ( f in d in g , “in th e f

e d e r a l r e g u la tio n s e s tab lis h in g a n a s y lu m p r o c e d u r e . . . a c le a rin te n t to g r a n t a lie n s th e r ig h t to s u b m it a n dth e o p p o rtu n ityto s u b s ta n tia te the i rc l a i m f

ora s y l um ” ) . B e c aus e the G ove rnm e nt ’ s a r gum e nt s a r e f or e c l os e d by o u rp r e c e d e n t, w e tu rn to th e m e r its o f M e n d e z ’s p e titio n s . II . M e nde z a s s e rt s the B I A e rr e d w he n i tdi s m i s s e d hi s m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n a s n u m e r ic a llyb a rr e d , a s th is w a s th e f ir s t a n do n lym o tio n to r e c ons i de rf

i l e d r e ga r di ng the B I A ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. T he G ov ernm entconcedes thi s w as error. U n d e r8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , “[ a ] p a rtym a yf ile o n lyo n e m o tio n to r e c ons i de ra nygi ve n de c i s i on a nd m a ynots e e k r e c ons i de r a t i on of ade c i s i on de ny i ng apr e vi ous m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 2) . I n Cal le v . U . S. A t t y . G e n. , 5 0 4 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) , w e h e ld :4 T h e r e g u la tio n d o e s n o t p r o v id e th a t a n a lie n m a yf ile on l y o n e m ot i on t o rec on si der throu gh ou ther e nt i re pr oc e e di ngs . T o th e c ontr ary , the r e gul a t i on’ s us e of the s i ngul a rt e rm s “ ade c i s i o n ” a nd “ a nygi ve n de c i s i on” s ug ge s t s tha t a n a l i e n ma y f i l e a mot i on t o r e c on s i der a s t o each de c is i on by the B IA thatan al i en i s r em ov abl e. T here fore , w e c on cl ud ed C al l e’ s m ot i on t o rec on si der c ou l d n otbe deem ed nu m er i ca l l y barre d o n the basi s of an ear l i erm ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on di re ct ed at ad if f e r e n t d e c is io n . I

d. a t 1 3 2 8 - 2 9 . M e n d e z ’s m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e B I A ’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e ope n w a s the f

i r s tm ot i on t o r e c ons i de rf i l e d f ortha tpa rt i c ul a rB I A de c i s i on. A cc ordi ng l y, the B IA abused i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tdeni ed M endez’ s m ot i on as nu m er i ca l l y barre d u nd er§ 1 00 3. 2(b)(2). H ow ever , because the B IA al so deni ed M e nde z ’ s m ot i on on the m e r i t s of hi s c l a i m , a s i s di s c us s e d be l ow , the B I A ’ s e rr or in th is r e g a r d w a s h a rm le s s . II I. M e n d e z c o n te n d s th e B I A e rr e da s am a tte ro f la w in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e ope n on the gr ound he ha d note s t abl i s he d pr e j udi c e r e s ul t i ng f

r om i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l on the ba s i s the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d w oul d nota l t e rthe concl usi on the al l egat i on s di d n otri se t o the l evel of pers ec ut i on . H e f urther a s s e rt s the e vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d byhi m i n hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n pr ovi de d s i gni f i c a nt corr ob orat i ve evi dence thatdem on stra t ed there w as a r ea sonabl e l i kel i ho od he w as5

e l i gi bl e f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) ha d he r e c e i ve d pr ope rr e pr e s e nt a t i on. W e r e vi e w both the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n ar e m ova l or de ra nd the d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e c o n s id e rf o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . A l iv . U

. S. A t t ’ y . G e n. , 4 4 3 F .3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( m o tio n to r e o p e n ) ; A s s a’ ad v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 33 2 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 41 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( m ot i on t o rec on si der) . R evi ew i s “ l i m i t ed t o de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve di s c r e t i on a nd w hether the m att erof exer ci se has bee n arbi traryor capri ci ou s. ” A li , 44 3 F . 3d at 8 0 8 ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . A m ot i on t o r e ope n “ s ha l l s t a t e the ne w f a c t s tha tw i l l be pr ove n a tahe a r i ng t o b e hel d i f the m ot i on i s grant ed, and shal l be supp ort ed by af fi davi t s or other e vi de nt i a rym a t e r i a l . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( c ) ( 7) ( B ) . W e ha ve he l d a n a l i e n c a n m ove t o reopen h i s r em ov al order on the basi s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , as M e n d e z d idh e r e . See D akane , 3 9 9 F .3 da t 1 2 7 4 . M ot i ons t o r e c ons i de ra r e f i l e d be f or e the i m m i gr a t i on of

f i c e r , c ourt , orthe B I A , f o rr e v ie w o f

c la im e d e rr o r s in th e la w o rf a c ts . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 6 ) ; 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( b) . “ A m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rs ha l l s t a t e the r e a s ons f orthe m ot i on bys pe c i f y i ng the e rr or s of

f a c torl a w i n the pr i orB oa r d de c i s i on a nd s ha l l be s upport e d bype rt i ne ntauthor i ty . ” 8 C . F . R . 1003. 2( b) ( 1) . H e r e , M e nde z f i l e d a mo t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e rth e BI A ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n , r a i s i n g th e s a me6

c la im s o n ap p e a l. T h u s , to th e e x te n t th e B I A p r o p e r lyd e n ie dh is m o tio n to r e o p e n , it p r o p e r lyd e n ie d h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . T o e s t abl i s h i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l i n the c ont e xtof ade port a t i on hear i ng , “ an al i en m ustes t abl i sh thathi s or hercoun se l ’ s per form ance w as de f i c i e ntt o the poi nttha ti ti m pi nge d upon the f unda m e nt a l f

a i rne s s of

the he a r i ng such thatthe al i en w as un abl e t o rea sonabl y pre se nthi s or herca se . ” D akane , 399 F . 3d a t1274 ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . I n M at te rof L oz ada , 19 I & N D e c . 637, 639 ( B I A 1988) , the B I A s e toutthe r e qui r e m e nt s f ore s t abl i s hi ng a n i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m i n i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ngs . A m ot i on ba s e d on i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l re qu i re s ( 1) the m ot i on be supp ort ed by an af fi davi tof the re spon dentse tt i ng forth i n d et ai l the agree m entthatw as ent er ed in to w ith c o u n s e l, ( 2 ) c o u n s e l b e in f o rm e do f th e a lle g a tio n s le v e le da g a in s t h im and b e gi ven an o pp ortun i ty t o res po nd , and (3) the m ot i on re fl ec tw hether a c o m p la in t h a s b e e n f

ile d w ith ap p r o p r ia te d is c ip lin a ryau th o r itie s w ith r e s p e c t to a n yv io la tio n o f

c o u n s e l’s r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , a n dif n o t, w h yn o t. I

d. W e have uph el d the M

at te rof L oz ada req u i rem en t s, an dh el dan al i en al so m u s t s h o w p r e

ju d ic e w h e n h e a d v a n c e s a n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im . D akane , 3 9 9 F . 3 d at1 2 7 4 . “ P rej u d i ce ex i st s w h en th e p erfo rm an ce o f co u n sel i s so i na de qua t e tha tthe r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tytha tbutf orthe a tt orne y ’ s e rr or , the ou t com e of the proceedi ng s w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” I d. T h u s , f

o rM e n d e z to7

succ ee d u nd er D akane , he m us te s t abl i s h the r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tytha t , but f orthe m i s t a ke s of

hi s a tt orne y , the out c om e of hi s or i gi na l a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l, a n d C A T r e q u e s ts w o u ldh a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. Se e i d. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng M endez’ s m ot i on t o reopen o r m o ti o n to re co n sid er . M en d ez fa il ed to d em o n stra te th at, b u t fo r h is atto rn ey ’s i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s , the r e w a s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tythe out c om e of the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f

f e r e nt . W i th r e ga r d t o the t i m e l i ne s s of hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on, M e nde z t e s t i f

i e d a thi s he a r i ng tha the di d nots pe a k t o a n a tt orne yunt i l a f t e rthe one - y e a rf

i l i ng de a dl i ne ha d pa s s e d, thus r e f ut i ng a nyc l a i m s he r a i s e d tha tthe e rr o n e o u s a d v ic e o f

a tto rn e y s e x c u s e dh is u n tim e lyf ilin g . W ith r e g a r dto h is c l a i m s f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C A T , the e vi de nc e he s ubm i tt e d e i the rpr i m a r i l yc orr obor a t e d hi s t e s t i m onybe f or e the I m m i gr a t i on Judg e ( IJ ) w hi ch the B IA had fou nd cr edi bl e, or w as cum ul at i ve of evi dence al re ady i n the re cord. F urther, M endez does notexpl ai n h ow the evi dence s ubm i tt e d w i th hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n di f f e r s f r om tha tor i gi na l l ys ubm i tt e d, orhow i tw ou l d h ave a l t er ed the ou t com e of hi s r em ov al proceedi ng had i tbeen subm i tt ed a ttha tt i m e . A c c or di ngl y , he ha s f a i l e d t o s how the B I A ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i ons w a s s o “ a rbi tr a ryorc apr i c i ous ” a s t o a m ountt o a n abus e of di s c r e t i on.8 I V. F i na l l y , M e nde z a s s e rt s the B I A e rr e d i n i t s J a nua ry30, 2006, or de ra nd o rd er d en yi n g h i s m o t i o n t o reco n si d er w h en i tfo u n dh e h ad n o tsu ffered p ast pe r s e c ut i on. W e r e vi e w ours ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on de no vo . R uiz v . G on zales , 47 9 F . 3d 76 2, 76 5 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ). T o the ext entthe B IA i ss ues are vi ew abl e, fi n al o rd er, an al i en m u stfi l e a p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew o f su ch d eci si o n w i th i n 3 0 d ays a f te rth e d a te o f

th e f in a l o r d e r . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . T h is tim e lim it is m andat ory and j uri sdi ct i on al , and i s nott ol l ed or suspended b y the fi l i ng of a m o tio n to r e o p e n w ith th e B o a r d . D akane , 3 9 9 F .3 da t 1 2 7 2 n .3 . T o the e xt e ntM e nde z ’ s a r gum e nthe B I A e rr e d byf i ndi ng he di d not e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on i s a n a tt e m ptt o a r gue hi s a tt orne y ’ s f a i l ur e t o pr e s e ntthe m a t e r i a l s i n hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n w a s pr e j udi c i a l t o hi s c a s e , a s di s c us s e d above , he d idn o t sh o w p re

ju d ice. T o th e e x ten t M en d ez attem p ts to ap p ea l th e B IA ’s J a nua ry30, 2006, a f

f i rm a nc e of

the I J ’ s r e m ova l or de r , be c aus e M e nde z di d not t i m e l yappe a l f

r om tha tor de r , a nd be c aus e the 30 da yt i m e pe r i od t o appe a l f r om tha tor de rha s e xpi r e d, w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s J a nua ry30, 2006, de c i s i on. A c c or di ngl y , M e nde z ’ s pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n a nd m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on a r e de ni e d. P E T I T I ON S DE NI E D.