NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-1684 ________________ HECTOR PONCE-VERDUZCO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A088-188-397) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on October 3, 2017 Before: SHWARTZ and ROTH, Circuit Judges and PAPPERT*, District Judge (Opinion filed: July 31, 2018) ________________ OPINION** ________________ * The Honorable Gerald J. Pappert, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge Hector Ponce-Verduzco (Ponce) appeals the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. Because we conclude that the BIA and Immigration Judge (IJ) did not abuse their discretion in concluding that Ponce’s former counsel was not ineffective, we will deny the petition for review. I. Ponce, a citizen of Mexico and former Mexican police officer, entered the United States in the late 1980s without being admitted or paroled. In January 2009, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against Ponce. Ponce filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal on the ground that he would suffer retaliation if deported to Mexico for previously exposing a fellow police officer’s illegal acts there. But when Ponce went before an IJ for his individual hearing in 2013, he did not proceed with his asylum application and instead accepted a grant of voluntary departure. Later, in 2014, Ponce—now represented by a new attorney—filed a motion and supporting certification to reopen his removal proceedings for consideration of a separately-filed I-589, this one based on his fear of persecution in Mexico due to his perceived wealth. Ponce argued that his prominence in the Mexican American community, as well as the increased occurrence of kidnappings of Mexican Americans in Mexico, constituted material changes that warranted reopening his removal proceeding. 2 In the motion, Ponce also alleged that his former counsel provided ineffective assistance. According to Ponce, before his scheduled individual hearing with the IJ, he informed his former counsel that he wanted to file a new asylum application relating to his fear of being kidnapped in Mexico due to his perceived wealth. Ponce claims that his former counsel improperly advised him that he could not raise a new basis for asylum at his individual hearing and that he should instead agree to voluntary departure. Ponce accepted this advice and agreed to voluntary departure. Prior to filing his motion to reopen, Ponce personally delivered a letter to his former counsel in which he stated that he considered her advice to be wrong and that he would be retaining a new attorney. Ponce never submitted a grievance against his former counsel with disciplinary authorities, believing that she mistakenly provided deficient advice, but had not engaged in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals