20-1808 Gonzalez-Padilla v. Garland BIA Hochul, IJ A209 408 087 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of September, two thousand 4 twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 Circuit Judges, 10 BRIAN M. COGAN,* 11 District Judge. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 OSSCAR GONZALEZ-PADILLA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1808 18 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED * Judge Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 2 Respondent. 3 _____________________________________ 4 5 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Esq., Law Offices of Jose Perez, 6 P.C., Syracuse, NY. 7 8 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 9 General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; 10 Lindsay Corliss, Trial Attorney, Office of 11 Immigration Litigation, United States 12 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 13 14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 15 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 16 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 17 Petitioner Osscar Gonzalez-Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks 18 review of a decision of the BIA affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge 19 (“IJ”) deeming his application for cancellation of removal abandoned and ordering 20 his removal to Mexico. In re Osscar Gonzalez-Padilla, No. A 209 408 087 (B.I.A. May 21 12, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 408 087 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo June 4, 2018). We assume 22 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 23 Gonzalez-Padilla argues that his application for cancellation of removal 24 should be reinstated, and his order of removal vacated, because he received 2 1 ineffective assistance of counsel in his agency proceedings. To prevail on an 2 ineffective assistance claim, however, a noncitizen must satisfy the procedural 3 requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (B.I.A. 1988), 4 which directs that the petitioner submit: 5 (1) an affidavit setting forth in detail the agreement with former 6 counsel concerning what action would be taken and what counsel did 7 or did not represent in this regard; (2) proof that the alien notified 8 former …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals