Rafael Lainez-Urquilla v. Jefferson Sessions
691 F. App'x 347
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Rafael Lainez-Urquilla, a Salvadoran national, sought review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
- The Immigration Judge ordered voluntary departure (or deportation) with a September 5, 1994 deadline; the statutory motion-to-reopen deadline relevant here was September 30, 1996.
- Lainez did not file his motion to reopen until July 6, 2011—nearly 15 years late.
- He argued the late filing should be excused because of changed country conditions in El Salvador (gang violence) and sought equitable tolling based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors.
- The BIA denied reopening as untimely and rejected exceptions for changed country conditions and equitable tolling; Lainez raised additional claims before the court (due process and ineffective assistance) that he had not presented to the BIA.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition in part (on the motion-to-reopen issue) and dismissed in part (for lack of jurisdiction over unexhausted claims); it also denied Lainez’s motion to supplement the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to reopen | Lainez: motion should be allowed despite lateness; country conditions changed (gang violence) warrant exception | Government: motion filed ~15 years late; statutory deadline controls and no qualifying exception | Denied — motion untimely; no qualifying changed-country-conditions exception shown |
| Changed country conditions exception | Lainez: El Salvador’s rising gang violence makes his case materially different now | Government: evidence lacks individualized relevance showing he would be targeted on a protected ground | Denied — petitioner failed to show individualized risk or protected-ground nexus |
| Equitable tolling | Lainez: ineffective assistance/error/fraud prevented timely filing | Government: petitioner did not present evidence before the BIA showing deception, fraud, error, or ineffective assistance that prevented filing | Denied — no basis shown for equitable tolling on the administrative record |
| Due process / ineffective assistance claims raised in court | Lainez: IJ failed to advise him of relief; counsel ineffective during proceedings | Government: claims were not exhausted before the BIA | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (individualized risk required to invoke changed-country-conditions exception)
- Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.) (discusses individualized relevance for asylum claims)
- Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.) (equitable tolling available for deception, fraud, or error)
- Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 (9th Cir.) (ineffective assistance of counsel can justify equitable tolling)
- Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879 (9th Cir.) (standards for equitable tolling tied to counsel error)
- Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562 (9th Cir.) (due-process and related claims must be exhausted before the BIA)
- Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir.) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims require administrative exhaustion)