Kol, et al v. Gonzales, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 18, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60366
Summary Calendar
MAPKU KOL,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 048 062
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mapku Kol, also known as Kole Marku and Kol Marku, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
that affirmed the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) determination that
his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings should be denied
as untimely. Kol argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling
based on the ineffective assistance of Richard Kulics, his former
attorney. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
of discretion. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.
2000).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-60366
-2-
We have not issued a published opinion squarely adopting the
doctrine of equitable tolling in the context of a motion to
reopen immigration proceedings. Nevertheless, even if we assume
without deciding that such tolling could be available to Kol, he
has not shown that he is entitled to it. The record reflects
that Kol failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing his claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel by delaying over two years
in raising the issue. See Cavazos v. Gonzales, 181 Fed. Appx.
453, 460-61 (5th Cir. 2006); Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383,
385 n.2 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Kol’s petition for review
is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --