In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2289 CARLOS ALVAREZ-ESPINO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A200-557-981 ____________________ ARGUED JANUARY 7, 2020 — DECIDED MARCH 6, 2020 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Carlos Alvarez-Espino entered the United States illegally in 1996, settled in Chicago, but later ran into legal trouble and came to the attention of immigration enforcement. During his time here, Alvarez-Espino assisted law enforcement by helping to solve a 2002 gas station rob- bery in which he was held at gunpoint. Helping the police made Alvarez-Espino potentially eligible for a U visa, which could allow him to stay in the United States. He hired 2 No. 19-2289 immigration counsel, but his lawyer failed to realize that Al- varez-Espino had a chance at receiving a U visa and instead pursued another remedy without success. Alvarez-Espino changed lawyers, but it was too late to reverse course. After protracted proceedings, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied multiple requests for relief, leaving Alvarez-Espino at risk of removal and having to await a decision on his U visa application from Mexico. In denying relief, the Board held Alvarez-Espino to an un- duly demanding burden on his allegation of ineffective assis- tance of counsel. But the law is equally clear that Alvarez-Es- pino’s ability to continue pursuing a U visa means that he can- not show prejudice from his attorney’s performance. So we are left to deny his petition for review. I Carlos Alvarez-Espino was born in Mexico in 1970. He en- tered the United States in 1996 without permission. Since then he and his wife have had four children, and he supports his family by running an upholstery business. Alvarez-Espino’s time in the United States has not been without incident. In 2002, two men robbed him at gunpoint at a gas station in Chi- cago. Five years later, he was arrested for drunk driving and, following a probation violation, ended up with a one-year prison term. Alvarez-Espino served about half of his sentence before being released on parole and taken into immigration custody. Removal proceedings then commenced. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (authorizing the removal of persons present in the United States without being admitted or paroled). Alvarez-Espino hired an attorney to assist him in navi- gating the complicated immigration system. His counsel No. 19-2289 3 decided to pursue one and only one legal strategy—cancella- tion of removal, a discretionary form of relief from deporta- tion for immigrants who have been in the country for at least ten years and whose families would suffer severe hardship if they were removed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). But people who have served 180 days or more in prison are ineligible for cancellation, see id. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1101(f)(7), and Alvarez- Espino spent about that much time in prison for his probation violation. Counsel’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals