N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT VIGEN PATATANYAN, AKA W ic ke n Pa ta ta nia n, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ATTHEW

G. W H ITAKER , Ac t ing Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 16-71621 16-72765 Age n c y No. A078-662-903
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 18, 2018 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, N.R . SM ITH, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. 1. The B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pa

ta ta n y an’ s m otion to re ope n. Patata ny a n file d the one a llowe d m otion



# F IL ED DEC 28 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).to re ope n unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5) in De c e m be r 2002. Se e also 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.23. An im

m igration judgede nie d the 2002 m otion; the a ppe a l of the de nia l wa s dism i sse d by the B IA. The re g ulations, 8 C .F.R . §§ 1003.2, 1003.23, do not a l low a pe titione r to file a se c ond m otion to re ope n in a bse ntia proc e e dings ba se d on the sam e c la im s. Pa ta ta ny an a lso fa i le d to e sta

blish thene c e ssa

ry due dilige nc e re quire d for
e quita ble tolling. Pa

t a ta ny an wa s a

ware of the pa

ra le ga l’ s shortc om ings whe n he file d his first m otion to re ope n in 2002. 1 Se e Soc op-Gonzale z v . IN S , 272 F.3d 1176, 1194–96 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba nc ). Ye t, he fa ile d to providea suffic ie nt
e xpla na tion for why

it took him

thirte e n y e ars a fte r his 2003 re m ova l to file the
se c o nd m otion. 2 Id.

1 Pa ta ta ny an re pe a te d the sa

m e a l le ga tions a ga i nst the pa ra le g a l in the se c o nd m otion to re o pe n. The s e argum e nts e sta blish tha t Pa tata ny an disc ove re d the p ara le ga l’ s m isc onduc t during his prior he aring. Se e Fajardo v . IN S , 300 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th C ir. 2002). He doe s not a sse rt a n y ne w c la im s nor doe s he a sse rt the l awy e r re p re s e nting him during the first m o tion to re ope n wa s ine ffe c tive
. 2 In the a lte rnative , the B IA a l so c onc lude d tha t Pa t a ta ny an fa ile d to c om

ply with Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637 (B IA 1988), whe n a sse rting ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l by

his pa ra le ga l. B e c a

use we c onc lude tha

t the B IA did not a buse i ts disc re tion in finding Pa tata ny an did not a c t with due dilige nc e , we ne e d not a ddre ss this a lte rnative c onc lusion. 22. The B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pa tata ny an’ s m otion for
re c o nside ra tion. 3 The B IA c onc lude d tha t Pa tata ny an fa ile d to e sta

b lish prim a fa c i e e l igibility

for re lie f, be c a

use he wa s ine ligible unde r the pe rse c utor ba r for
a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l
. Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1101(a )(42), 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B )(i). Pa t a ta ny an did not c h a l le nge this finding on
a ppe a l; thus, it is wa

ive d. Martine

z -Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). As a

re sult, Pa t a ta ny an ha s fa ile d to e sta

blish prim a

fa c ie e ligibility

for
a sy lum or withholding of rem ova l. 4 Se e 8 C
. F.R
. § 1240.8(d). PE T IT IO NS FO R

RE V IE W DE NIE D.

3 In a ddre ssing them otion to re ope n, the B IA fa ile d to a d dre ss Patata ny an’ s c la im tha t m a te ria lly c h a

nge d c irc u m sta

n c e s e ntitle d him to re lie f. Howe ve r, any e rror wa s ha

rm le ss, be c a

use the B IA c onside re d the c la im on the m e rits in re vie wing the m o t ion for re c onside ra tion.

4 In the a lte rnative , the B IA c o nc lude d tha t Pa tata ny an fa ile d to produc e e vide nc e of m a te ria lly

c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s. B e c a

use Pa t a ta ny an is ine ligible for a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l unde r the pe rse c utor ba r, we ne e d not re a c h this issue . Howe ve r, e ve n if we we re to re a c h it, Pa tat any an ha s not e sta

blishe d that the B IA a

b use d its disc re t ion in m a king this c onc lusion. Se e 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii). 3