FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 23, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ADALI NOLBERTO LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 12-9508
(Petition for Review)
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before MATHESON, Circuit Judge, PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge, and
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
Adali Nolberto Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala appearing pro se,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
(BIA) denying as untimely his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)1 and deny the petition for review.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Lopez entered the United States without inspection in 1993. He filed an
application for asylum in 1994, asserting that (1) when he was in the tenth grade at
school, he was forced from his home against his will to train with a guerilla group,
(2) he escaped from the guerrilla group after a few days, and (3) he left immediately
for the United States because he feared the guerrillas would kill him if he stayed in
Guatemala. Admin. R. at 142. Deportation proceedings commenced in March 1996.
Throughout the administrative proceedings, an accredited representative from the
Hispanic American Mission, not an attorney, represented Mr. Lopez. See id. at 46,
63, 75, 84-85.2
In September 1996, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding
of deportation, but granted Mr. Lopez’s request for voluntary departure. Id. at 71.
1
Prior to the REAL ID Act of 2005, this case would have been governed by the
transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, because Mr. Lopez’s case was
commenced before April 1, 1997, the effective date of IIRIRA, and the final order of
deportation was entered after October 31, 1996. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d
1179, 1180 n.1 (10th Cir. 2003). However, section 106(d) of the REAL ID Act
requires this court to treat the case as if it had been filed under IIRIRA’s permanent
rules (as amended by the REAL ID Act). See Pub. L. No. 109-13, sec. 106(d),
119 Stat. 231, 311.
2
Non-lawyers may be authorized to provide representation in deportation
proceedings as “[a]ccredited representatives.” 8 C.F.R. § 292.1(a)(4); see also id.
§ 292.2(a).
-2-
The IJ explained the voluntary departure order to Mr. Lopez at the end of the hearing,
see id. at 106-07, and his representative also told him that he had to leave the United
States voluntarily, see id. at 41. Mr. Lopez’s representative filed a two-page brief on
appeal to the BIA. Id. at 51-52. The BIA dismissed the appeal in May 1997,
agreeing with the IJ that Mr. Lopez had failed to show that he was persecuted on
account of a statutorily protected ground and therefore had failed to carry his burden
of proof for asylum or withholding of deportation. Id. at 46.
In November 2010, Mr. Lopez filed, through counsel, a motion to reopen with
the BIA. Id. at 33-39. He argued that his representative’s negligence caused him to
lose his appeal to the BIA because she failed to: (1) file a brief with the BIA,
(2) inform him of the voluntary departure order, and (3) inform him of any other
alternatives to seek further review of his claim. Id. at 35. He further argued that she
failed to inform him of the BIA’s decision. See id. at 39. The government opposed
the motion to reopen.
The BIA concluded that Mr. Lopez’s motion to reopen was untimely in light of
the ninety-day deadline to file a motion to reopen with the BIA. Id. at 7 (citing
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)). The BIA further determined that Mr. Lopez was not entitled
to equitable tolling of the filing deadline because the record contradicted some of his
allegations of ineffective assistance and because he had not supported all of his
allegations with evidence. See id. The BIA concluded that he therefore had failed to
meet the requirements of In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Admin.
-3-
R. at 7. The BIA discerned no reasonable explanation for Mr. Lopez’s thirteen-year
delay in filing his motion to reopen, and concluded that he had failed to exercise due
diligence to warrant equitable tolling. Id. at 8. Finally, the BIA decided that
Mr. Lopez had failed to establish an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte
reopening by the BIA. Id. Mr. Lopez filed his pro se petition for review in the Ninth
Circuit, which transferred the petition to this court.
II. DISCUSSION
In his opening brief, Mr. Lopez argues that: (1) he should be allowed to
reopen because his accredited representative provided ineffective assistance during
his deportation proceedings in failing to advise him that he could file a petition for
review in this court; and (2) the change in country conditions in Guatemala warranted
the reopening of his deportation proceedings.
A. Ineffective Assistance
We review the BIA’s decision denying a motion to reopen as untimely for
abuse of discretion. Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1361-62 (10th Cir. 2004).
Mr. Lopez does not argue that his motion to reopen was timely. And “we do not
have jurisdiction to consider [whether] the BIA should have sua sponte reopened the
proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) because there are no standards by which to
judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.” Id. at 1361. Mr. Lopez instead relies on
equitable tolling based on his representative’s ineffective assistance to overcome the
untimeliness of his motion to reopen.
-4-
But Mr. Lopez’s opening brief does not challenge the BIA’s conclusions that
(1) he failed to comply with the In re Lozada requirements and (2) he failed to
exercise due diligence in filing his motion.
Under Matter of Lozada, a motion based on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel must be supported by (1) the aggrieved party's
affidavit setting forth the agreement that was entered into with former
counsel and what counsel did or did not represent to the respondent in
this regard; (2) evidence that former counsel was informed of the
allegations and allowed the opportunity to respond; and (3) evidence the
aggrieved party filed a complaint with appropriate disciplinary
authorities, and if not, why not. Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec.
at 639.
Mickeviciute v. INS, 327 F.3d 1159, 1161 n.2 (10th Cir. 2003). Mr. Lopez’s brief
does not address the In re Lozada requirements or attempt to show how he met them.
At most, he states that he “requested from the Board of Immigration Appeals to toll
the time due to the nature of his motion.” Pet’r’s Opening Br. at 3. Issues
inadequately raised in the opening brief are deemed waived. Iliev v. Holder,
613 F.3d 1019, 1026 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010). And although Mr. Lopez makes a brief
reference to In re Lozada in his reply brief, “arguments raised for the first time in a
reply brief are generally deemed waived.” United States v. Harrell, 642 F.3d 907,
918 (10th Cir. 2011).
B. Changed Country Conditions
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mr. Lopez’s argument that changed country
conditions warranted reopening. He failed to exhaust administrative remedies
regarding this claim because he did not present it to the BIA, and the BIA did not
-5-
address it sua sponte. See Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1116, 1119-22 (10th Cir.
2007).
III. CONCLUSION
The petition for review is denied.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-6-