NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 20-1182 TIO WESLEY LEGORE, a/k/a TIO LEGORE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review of a Final Order Of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No.: A207-528-982) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on April 19, 2021 Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: April 20, 2021) OPINION * AMBRO, Circuit Judge When the attorney for petitioner Tio Wesley Legore stopped showing up to his removal proceedings, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Legore removed. He is seeking a remand to the IJ, claiming his right to counsel and due process was violated. Legore also claims that he was not required to show prejudice because the IJ violated a regulation promulgated to protect his fundamental rights. None of his claims are persuasive. We thus deny the petition for review. I. Legore is a citizen of Jamaica and entered the United States in 2009 on a tourist visa. He overstayed his visa and was placed in removal proceedings in 2018. Through counsel, Legore denied the removability charge in his Notice to Appear. He stated that he planned to marry his United States citizen fiancée, which would make him potentially eligible for certain forms of relief from removal, but he could not do so because the fiancée was still a minor. The IJ granted multiple continuances based in part on counsel’s promise that Legore would soon marry his fiancée after she turned 18. But there is no record evidence that Legore and his fiancée ever married. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 At a later hearing, the IJ asked Legore’s counsel if he would be filing an asylum application and stated that it would have to be filed at the next hearing. Counsel said he would have to investigate to determine if asylum would be appropriate. However, counsel did not show up at the next hearing or the hearing after that. The IJ concluded Legore was unrepresented, deemed all his applications for relief abandoned, and ordered his removal. Through new counsel, Legore appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), arguing the IJ violated his right to counsel and due process rights by failing to continue his case when his attorney failed to appear. The BIA dismissed the appeal. It concluded that, although Legore’s counsel let him down, he was not denied the right to counsel or the opportunity to obtain counsel of his choice. It also noted that Legore had not brought an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. It further determined Legore was not prejudiced by any error on the part of the IJ even if the IJ should have continued the proceedings to allow Legore to prepare his own applications. Legore filed a petition for review in February 2020 and was deported to Jamaica in May 2020. 1 II. Legore raises three arguments. None …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals