Canales-Canales v. Garland

20-844 Canales-Canales v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A209 288 324/323 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 TO 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 7th day of December, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD C. WELSEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ RUTH ELIZABETH CANALES-CANALES, Y. D. T-C, Petitioners, v. 20-844 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _________________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Rosmarie A. Barnett, Freeport, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Assistant Director; Allison Frayer, 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 Ruth Elizabeth Canales-Canales and her minor son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a February 6, 2020 decision of the BIA denying their motion to remand and affirming a March 26, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ruth Elizabeth Canales-Canales, Y. D. T-C, Nos. A209 228 324/323 (B.I.A. Feb. 6, 2020), aff’g Nos. A209 228 324/323 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We consider only the BIA’s denial of the motion to remand because Canales-Canales does not otherwise challenge the agency’s decisions. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Her sole argument is 2 that the BIA erred in declining to remand because her counsel before the IJ was ineffective. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2005). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Canales-Canales had to show “that competent counsel would have acted otherwise,” and “that [s]he was prejudiced by [her] counsel’s performance.” Rabiu v. I.N.S., 41 F.3d 879, 883 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Esposito v. I.N.S., 987 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1993)). To show “actual prejudice,” she had to establish her prima facie eligibility for the …

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