Caicedo v. Sessions

16-3977 Caicedo v. Sessions 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 31st day of January, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. IVONNE MARIBEL BAJANA CAICEDO, AKA JESSICA GIRALDO, Petitioner, 16-3977 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: Shauky Michael Musa-Obregon, White Plains, New York FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Timothy G. Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Ivonne Maribel Bajana Caicedo (“Caicedo”) seeks review of an October 31, 2016 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to remand based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and affirming an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal. In re Ivonne Maribel Bajana Caicedo, No. A 047 389 247 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2016), aff’g No. A 047 389 247 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 15, 2015). Caicedo argues that the BIA erred when it ruled that she failed to follow the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, related to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Lozada mandates that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must be supported by 1) an affidavit detailing the agreement between the applicant and former counsel; 2) evidence that notice was given to former counsel of the allegations, with adequate time for response; and 3) if a violation of ethical or legal responsibilities is claimed, a statement as to whether the applicant has filed a complaint regarding counsel’s conduct with the appropriate disciplinary authorities or, if not, a statement why the applicant has not done so. Garcia- Martinez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 511, 512 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006). The ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals