[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-15480 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 12, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A071-587-260
KAPILA WIJESIRI WIMALARATNE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(June 12, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kapila Wimalaratne, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen his
removal proceedings sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). On appeal,
Wimalaratne first argues that we should allow equitable tolling of the 90-day
period for filing a motion to reopen where the motion raises a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Second, he asserts that we have jurisdiction to review the
BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority because he raised the
constitutional claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. For the
reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review in part and dismiss the
petition for review in part.
I.
Wimalaratne filed an application for asylum with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) in 1991. In 1998, the INS referred Wimalaratne’s
application to an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) for a hearing. The INS also issued a
Notice to Appear to Wimalaratne, charging that he was removable under
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(B), as a nonimmigrant who remained in the United States for a time
longer than permitted.
During his removal proceedings, Wimalaratne was represented by attorney
Mahinda Bogollagama. Wimalaratne’s individual hearing before an IJ was
scheduled for January 1999. The transcript of this hearing is not included in the
2
administrative record, but it appears that Wimalaratne withdrew his asylum
application during the hearing and requested voluntary departure. The IJ issued an
order permitting Wimalaratne to voluntarily depart prior to May 21, 1999. In the
event that Wimalaratne failed to leave the country by that date, the IJ ordered that
he be removed to Sri Lanka.
In January 2008, Wimalaratne, represented by new counsel, filed a motion
to reopen his removal proceedings. Wimalaratne acknowledged that his motion
had not been filed within the 90-day deadline for motions to reopen, but argued
that the IJ had the authority to sua sponte reopen the case based on exceptional
circumstances. He asserted that the exceptional-circumstances requirement was
met in his case because his former attorney, Bogollagama, had provided him with
ineffective assistance of counsel. Wimalaratne explained that he had intended to
proceed with his request for asylum at the removal hearing, but Bogollagama
incorrectly informed the IJ that he wanted to withdraw his asylum application and
plead for voluntary departure.
Wimalaratne submitted an affidavit in support of his motion to reopen. He
explained that he left Sri Lanka to escape threats from a terrorist group. He had
hoped to return to Sri Lanka, but when the political situation in Sri Lanka
continued to deteriorate, he decided to apply for asylum in the United States. At
3
the January 1999 hearing, however, Bogollagama told the IJ that Wimalaratne
wanted to withdraw his asylum application and apply for voluntary departure.
Wimalaratne did not want to embarrass his attorney, so he simply agreed with his
attorney’s statements when the IJ asked him whether he was withdrawing his
asylum application and seeking voluntary departure.
The IJ denied Wimalaratne’s motion to reopen and declined to sua sponte
reopen Wimalaratne’s removal proceedings. The IJ explained that, if Wimalaratne
felt that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, he had an obligation to
assert that claim within a reasonable period of time. Wimalaratne’s decision to
wait more than nine years to bring his ineffective-assistance claim was not
reasonable.
Wimalaratne appealed to the BIA. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s
order denying Wimalaratne’s motion to reopen. The BIA observed that
Wimalaratne had not exercised due diligence in raising his claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Wimalaratne moved for reconsideration of the BIA’s order,
and the BIA denied Wimalaratne’s motion for reconsideration.
Wimalaratne petitioned for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion for
reconsideration, and he asked us to remand the case to the BIA to allow him to
present new evidence regarding Bogollagama’s ineffective assistance.
4
Wimalaratne v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F. App’x 700, 701 (11th Cir. 2011). We
denied Wimalaratne’s petition for review. Id. at 705.
On June 30, 2011, Wimalaratne filed a second, pro se motion to reopen his
case sua sponte. He argued that Bogollagama’s ineffective assistance was an
exceptional circumstance that warranted reopening the case, and that he had only
recently learned that Bogollagama’s assistance was ineffective. Additionally,
Wimalaratne asserted that he was denied due process because Bogollagama’s
ineffective assistance prevented him from seeking all available forms of relief
during his removal proceedings. Wimalaratne attached a declaration to his
motion, in which he stated that Bogollagama had helped Wimalaratne file his
asylum application in 1991. Later, when Wimalaratne was placed in removal
proceedings, Bogollagama withdrew the asylum application and insisted that
Wimalaratne request voluntary departure. Bogollagama did not inform
Wimalaratne of the consequences that would follow such a decision. Several
years later, after consulting a new lawyer, Wimalaratne learned that Bogollagama
had not signed the asylum application and that Bogollagama’s Virginia law license
had since been revoked. Wimalaratne also included a letter he sent to
Bogollagama in October 2010 seeking the return of Bogollagama’s fee due to the
ineffective assistance.
5
The BIA denied the motion to reopen, which was untimely and
numerically-barred under the INA. The BIA determined that the evidence
Wimalaratne had submitted with his motion did not warrant either equitable
tolling of the time limit or the exercise of its authority to reopen proceedings sua
sponte. Moreover, in the Eleventh Circuit, the time period for filing a motion to
reopen was not subject to equitable tolling, even where there was a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA also noted that, although Wimalaratne
seemed to meet the procedural requirements to raise a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, he had not pursued his claim with due diligence.
II.
When the denial of a motion to reopen is reviewable, it is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. See Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.2 (11th
Cir. 2005). An alien must file a motion to reopen before the BIA within 90 days
of the date on which the final order of removal was rendered. INA
§ 240(c)(7)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Even
where an alien has raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the 90-day
time limitation “is mandatory and jurisdictional, and, therefore, it is not subject to
equitable tolling.” Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1150, 1150 n.2 (11th
Cir. 2005). Finally, “we are bound by earlier panel holdings unless and until they
6
are overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court.” Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft
Indus., Inc., 645 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation and alteration
omitted).
The BIA did not err in finding that equitable tolling could not excuse the
untimely filing of Wimalaratne’s motion to reopen. Under Abdi, the 90-day time
period in which an alien must file a motion to reopen is “mandatory and
jurisdictional” and “not subject to equitable tolling.” 430 F.3d at 1150. We are
bound to apply this rule to Wimalaratne’s case because it has not been “overruled
en banc or by the Supreme Court.” Horowitch, 645 F.3d at 1258 (quotation
omitted). Accordingly, we deny Wimalaratne’s petition for review as it pertains to
the BIA’s finding regarding the inapplicability of equitable tolling.
III.
Constitutional challenges are reviewed de novo. Alhuay v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
661 F.3d 534, 548 (11th Cir. 2011). The BIA may reopen a case “at any time” sua
sponte. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). There is no express statutory grant of authority to
reopen cases sua sponte. Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir.
2008). Rather, the authority derives from INA § 103(g)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2),
a statute granting general authority to the Attorney General over immigration
matters. Lenis, 525 F.3d at 1293. Because there are no standards to govern the
7
BIA’s exercise of its sua sponte discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review such a
decision. Id. at 1293-94. In Lenis, we noted without deciding that we might have
jurisdiction to review constitutional claims related to the denial of a motion to
reopen sua sponte. Id. at 1294 n.7. In a case in which INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), provided us with jurisdiction to consider a constitutional
claim, we noted that we nonetheless “lack[ed] jurisdiction [w]here a constitutional
claim ha[d] no merit.” Alhuay, 661 F.3d at 548 n.15 (quotation omitted); see also
Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007).
Aliens have the right to effective assistance of counsel during their removal
proceedings. Gbaya v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 342 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2003). To
establish ineffective assistance, the “alien must establish that his or her counsel’s
performance was deficient to the point that it impinged the fundamental fairness of
the hearing.” Id. (quotations omitted).
Our jurisdiction over constitutional claims where the BIA has declined to
exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings appears to be an
open question. See Lenis, 525 F.3d at 1294 n.7. Nonetheless, we need not
determine whether we have jurisdiction in such cases generally because here, we
lack jurisdiction to consider Wimalaratne’s meritless constitutional claim. See
Alhuay, 661 F.3d at 548 n.15.
8
On appeal, Wimalaratne’s ineffective assistance argument focuses on two
points: (1) that Bogollagama did not file a notice of appearance with the 1991
asylum application, and (2) that Bogollagama withdrew Wimalaratne’s asylum
application in 1999 without properly advising Wimalaratne of the consequences of
that action. As to the first point, Wimalaratne does not explain how the lack of a
notice of appearance in 1991 actually affected his 1999 removal proceedings or
rendered them unfair. That the IJ did not know that Bogollagama played a role in
filing the original asylum application had no bearing on whether Wimalaratne
received a fundamentally fair removal hearing. See Gbaya, 342 F.3d at 1221.
Wimalaratne also has not shown that Bogollagama’s advice in 1999
rendered his removal proceedings unfair. See Gbaya, 342 F.3d at 1221. Although
the transcript of the hearing before the IJ is not in the record, Wimalaratne stated
in an affidavit that, when the IJ asked him whether he wished to withdraw his
asylum application and seek voluntary departure, he agreed with Bogollagama’s
statement that he wished to take that course of action. Notwithstanding his
assertion that he did not want to embarrass Bogollagama, Wimalaratne was given
the opportunity during his removal hearing to inform the IJ that his attorney was
taking a course of action that they had not discussed or agreed to, but he chose not
to do so. Similarly, at that time, Wimalaratne could have informed the IJ that he
9
was unaware of the meaning of voluntary departure and the effect that it would
have on his ability to remain in the United States. Because Wimalaratne had the
opportunity to inform the IJ that he would like to pursue his asylum application,
his removal proceedings were not rendered fundamentally unfair by his decision to
follow his attorney’s lead and withdraw that application and seek voluntary
departure. See Gbaya, 342 F.3d at 1221. Thus, Wimalaratne’s constitutional
claim has no merit, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the claim. See Alhuay,
661 F.3d at 548 n.15. Accordingly, we dismiss Wimalaratne’s petition for review
as it pertains to his constitutional claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review in part and
dismiss the petition for review in part.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
10