Bd. did not err in denying alien’s motion to reopen their applications for asylum and withholding of removal based on claim that their counsel was ineffective. Said motion was untimely, since it was filed more than 90 days from entry of removal order. Fact that Bd. had partially reopened case on date subsequent to removal order did not serve to extend relevant 90-day period for filing motion to reopen case. Moreover, aliens presented inadequate reason for filing late motion to reopen case, where: (1) aliens explained that reason for tardy motion was their investigation of instant ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and (2) aliens had only sent letter to their former counsel expressing their displeasure with his performance and sent complaint to ARDC during said investigation period. Also, aliens failed to present viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim where evidence that aliens claimed should have been presented to Bd. was only cumulative to evidence already before Bd.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Immigration