Eduardo Araujo-Trujillo v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 17-2871 ______________ EDUARDO ARAUJO-TRUJILLO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. BIA-1:A070-678-821) Immigration Judge: Hon. Charles W. Honeyman ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 21, 2018 ______________ Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and COWEN, Circuit Judges. (Filed: June 27, 2018) ______________ OPINION * ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Eduardo Araujo-Trujillo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and changed country conditions. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we will deny the petition. I A Araujo-Trujillo is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in the 1980s without inspection. 1 He requested asylum in 1993, asserting guerrilla groups in Guatemala posed a danger to him and his family because he did not want to join these groups. His case was referred to an Immigration Judge (the “IJ”) in 2007. 2 The Department of Homeland Security (the “DHS”) charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). In 2008, through his then-counsel Jaime Winthuysen Aparisi and Arturo Viscarra, Araujo-Trujillo conceded removability, sought cancellation of removal and, in the alternative, voluntary departure, and withdrew his asylum application. At subsequent 1 Araujo-Trujillo provided different dates concerning his date of entry but the differences are immaterial to our decision. 2 This delay appears to be the result of the slow pace of adjudicating immigration cases involving individuals from Central America during the pendency of American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (approving settlement agreement in class action concerning challenges to the processing of asylum applications filed by Guatemalans and Salvadorans). 2 proceedings, Araujo-Trujillo was represented by attorney Yusuf Ahmad, who also was a member of Aparisi’s firm. During a September 2009 hearing, Ahmad confirmed that Araujo-Trujillo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims had been withdrawn. The IJ asked Ahmed to confirm whether Araujo-Trujillo had filed any other applications or petitions during his time in the United States, and pressed Ahmad to make sure he had “done [his] due diligence” regarding eligibility under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 and for benefits under American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991), see supra n.2; A.R. 761. Ahmad said he did not believe Araujo-Trujillo was eligible for relief under these programs. At a September 2011 hearing, the IJ discussed with Araujo-Trujillo the strength of his application for cancellation of removal and explained his options, which included proceeding with the application or withdrawing it with prejudice in exchange for a one- year continuance. The latter option would provide him another year ...

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