20-1689 Vanegas-Morales v. Garland BIA Laforest, IJ A096 182 683 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ GLORIA LETICIA VANEGAS-MORALES, Petitioner, v. 20-1689 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., Hempstead, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Acting Assistant Director; Christin M. Whitacre, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Gloria Leticia Vanegas-Morales, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a May 14, 2020, decision of the BIA, which dismissed her appeal of a March 13, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re Gloria Leticia Vanegas-Morales, No. A096 182 683 (B.I.A. May 14, 2020), aff’g No. A096 182 683 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 13, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision. See Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2021). Before the BIA, Vanegas-Morales argued that her attorney provided ineffective assistance and that the IJ should have intervened when counsel conceded that he was not prepared for the Government to oppose the motion to terminate the proceedings. She did not otherwise challenge the IJ’s 2 decision, and the BIA addressed only these ineffective assistance arguments. We deny the petition because Vanegas- Morales has abandoned her ineffective assistance claims by failing to raise them in her brief to this Court. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (issues not raised in briefs are abandoned). Moreover, because she raised only the ineffective assistance claims before the BIA, the arguments she raises in her brief are unexhausted and not subject to judicial review. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[U]sually . . . issues not raised to the BIA will not be examined by the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals