NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0017n.06 No. 19-3560 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 14, 2020 LEONEL EUGENIO-REYES, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: SILER, GIBBONS, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Leonel Eugenio-Reyes petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. As set forth below, we DISMISS in part and DENY in part Eugenio- Reyes’s petition for review. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security served Eugenio-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging him with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Appearing before an immigration judge (IJ), Eugenio-Reyes claimed that he entered the United States without inspection in 1993 and that he had not left since his arrival. The IJ found by clear and convincing evidence that Eugenio-Reyes was removable based on his admissions. Eugenio-Reyes subsequently applied for cancellation of removal on the basis that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen No. 19-3560, Eugenio-Reyes v. Barr children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Attorney Rafael Velez prepared Eugenio-Reyes’s application and filed exhibits in support. At the hearing on his application, Eugenio-Reyes was represented by attorney Eric Montierth, who was “pinch-hitting” for Velez. (A.R. 127). Eugenio-Reyes and his son testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ denied Eugenio-Reyes’s application for cancellation of removal and ordered his removal to Mexico. The IJ found that Eugenio-Reyes and his son had provided credible testimony but noted that corroborating evidence should have been submitted but had not. According to the IJ, Eugenio-Reyes had failed to satisfy his burden of proof by failing to establish three of the statutory requirements for cancellation of removal: ten years of continuous physical presence, good moral character, and the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The IJ also denied Eugenio-Reyes’s request for post-conclusion voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b). Eugenio-Reyes, represented by new counsel, appealed the IJ’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal to the BIA. Eugenio-Reyes asserted in part that Velez had provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to supplement his application with additional corroborating documents. The BIA dismissed Eugenio-Reyes’s appeal. According to the BIA, Eugenio-Reyes had failed to establish ineffective assistance warranting a remand because he had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), and because he had failed to demonstrate prejudice. The BIA rejected Eugenio-Reyes’s argument that the IJ was obligated to request additional corroborating evidence before issuing a decision. On the merits of the application for cancellation ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals