Court Opinion

ID: 9956736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 20:00:46.953652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:50.697423
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 2 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CATALINA JUAN-MONTEJO; JUANA                    No. 23-713
ARACELY JUAN-MONTEJO; LUIS                      Agency Nos.
HUMBERTO GASPAR-                                A206-462-764
JUAN; MARGARITO JUAN-MONTEJO,                   A206-462-766
                                                A206-462-765
             Petitioners,
                                                A206-462-767
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**
                               Seattle, Washington

Before: WARDLAW and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CORLEY, District
Judge.***

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
             The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
      Catalina Juan-Montejo and her minor children, natives and citizens of

Guatemala, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen as time- and number-barred. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Juan-Montejo was not

entitled to equitable tolling of the deadline for filing her motion to reopen. Juan-

Montejo’s motion was time-barred, for it was filed more than three years after the

applicable 90-day deadline passed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Similarly, her

motion was number-barred, for it was her second motion to reopen. See id. Still, a

noncitizen “can secure review of a motion to reopen that would otherwise be time-

and number-barred if the deadline is subject to equitable tolling.” Perez-Camacho

v. Garland, 54 F.4th 597, 605–06 (9th Cir. 2022).

      Where, as here, the petitioner argues that ineffective assistance of counsel

should toll the time- and -number bars, the petitioner must demonstrate: “(a) that

[s]he was prevented from timely filing [her] motion due to prior counsel’s

ineffectiveness; (b) that [s]he demonstrated due diligence in discovering counsel’s

fraud or error; and (c) that [s]he complied with the procedural requirements of

Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).” Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d

879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011). For purposes of this disposition, we assume that Juan-

Montejo was prevented from timely filing by her prior counsel’s deficient

                                         2                                    23-713
performance and turn directly to due diligence.

      When evaluating whether a petitioner has established due diligence, we

consider first, “if (and when) a reasonable person in petitioner’s position would

suspect the specific fraud or error underlying her motion to reopen.” Avagyan v.

Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the BIA correctly determined

that Juan-Montejo demonstrated awareness of many of her counsel’s alleged errors

at the time of her original removal proceedings.1

      Second, we consider “whether petitioner took reasonable steps to investigate

the suspected fraud or error, or, if petitioner is ignorant of counsel’s shortcomings,

whether petitioner made reasonable efforts to pursue relief.” Avagyan, 646 F.3d at

679. The BIA correctly concluded that Juan-Montejo failed to establish due

diligence during the two-year period between the November 30, 2017, when her

first motion to reopen was denied and September 2019, when she hired present

counsel. She identifies no actions taken during this period to “investigate the

suspected fraud or error,” or even “reasonable efforts to pursue relief.” Id. As

such, even if Juan-Montejo was completely unaware of any of counsel’s mistakes

during this period, she still fails to meet the due diligence requirement.

1
  The record provides no basis to conclude, however, that Juan-Montejo suspected
her counsel’s failure to identify relevant proposed social groups at the time of her
individual hearing. As to that aspect of counsel’s performance, then, she need only
demonstrate that she “made reasonable efforts to pursue relief until she learned of
counsel’s ineffectiveness.” Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 682.

                                         3                                    23-713
       Finally, we consider “when the tolling period should end; that is, when

petitioner definitively learns of the harm resulting from counsel’s deficiency, or

obtains ‘vital information bearing on the existence of [her] claim.’” Id. (quoting

Albillo-DeLeon v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2005)). At that point,

the 90-day clock begins to run again. Here, the latest date upon which Juan-

Montejo arguably gained new information bearing on her claim was December 30,

2020, when Juan-Montejo met with present counsel and a fluent Akateko speaker.

Thus, even if the filing deadline was tolled until December 30, 2020, her motion

was still filed more than two months after the 90-day deadline expired.2

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2
  Because we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding Juan-
Montejo’s motion to reopen time- and number-barred, we do not reach the
remaining issues.

                                        4                                    23-713