DRAYTON P V DBATEPOLA, AKA Puwakpitiya Vithanalage Dharmakirthi Drayton Batepola v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DRAYTON P V D BATEPOLA, AKA
Puwakpitiya Vithanalage Dharmakirthi
Drayton Batepola,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71374
Agency No. A070-637-299
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2015 **
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Batepola’s untimely
motion to reopen. The BIA reasonably determined that Batepola was not entitled to
equitable tolling because he failed to pursue his claims of ineffective assistance of
FILED
FEB 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

counsel against his two prior attorneys with due diligence, Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 897–99 (9th Cir. 2003), and failed to comply with the procedural
requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), see
Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 2000). The BIA also
reasonably determined that Batepola’s second attorney performed competently and
that Batepola did not suffer prejudice as a result of following her advice.
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Batepola failed
to introduce new material evidence to support reopening based on changed country
conditions. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).
3. Batepola’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
PETITION DENIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --