SIOKAPESI ANAUKIMOANA VILINGIA, AKA Siokapesi Hola v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIOKAPESI ANAUKIMOANA
VILINGIA, AKA Siokapesi Hola,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71717
Agency No. A088-771-044
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Siokapesi Anaukimoana Vilingia, a native and citizen of Tonga, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71717
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vilingia’s untimely motion
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where she failed to establish
prejudice from the allegedly deficient performance of her former attorney. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (requiring prejudice to
state valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Lona v. Barr, 958
F.3d 1225, 1230 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[E]quitable tolling is available where, despite all
due diligence, the party invoking the doctrine is unable to obtain vital information
bearing on the existence of the claim.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). To the extent Vilingia contends the BIA erred in its analysis of
her motion, we reject the contention as unsupported by the record.
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --