FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 28, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court VICKY YULISSA CHAVEZ-FINO; JANE DOE, a minor child, Petitioners, v. No. 18-9540 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioners petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen their removal proceeding. We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part for lack of jurisdiction. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. BACKGROUND Petitioners are natives and citizens of Honduras. Petitioner Jane Doe is the minor daughter of petitioner Vicky Yulissa Chavez-Fino. Petitioners entered the United States without inspection on or about June 13, 2014. On June 15, 2014, they were each served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) alleging they were inadmissible as aliens present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). They were later issued a Notice of Hearing ordering them to appear at a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) on August 7, 2014. They appeared at the IJ hearing and were granted a continuance to obtain counsel. Petitioners were thereafter represented in immigration proceedings by a series of attorneys, several of whom they would subsequently allege provided them with constitutionally deficient representation.1 During the proceedings they admitted the allegations in their NTAs, conceded their removability, and filed a timely application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).2 The IJ held a hearing on their application at which Ms. Chavez-Fino testified. He denied the application. The IJ found that although she testified credibly, she failed to establish that she had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of any 1 Jane Doe was a “rider” on her mother’s application. We address, infra, her separate claim alleging ineffective assistance in counsel’s failure to file a separate asylum application on her behalf. 2 Petitioners do not pursue their CAT claim on appeal. See Pet’rs’ Opening Br. at 10 n.2. 2 protected ground, including her membership in a particular social group. In addition, she failed to show that her former attorney, who prepared her asylum application, had provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ also explained his reasons for denying her motion for a continuance of the hearing. Petitioners appealed to the BIA. They argued that (1) their ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals