NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-3295 _____________ LUIS BOLIVAR BALBOA GUAMAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A089-854-825 Immigration Judge: Eugene Pugliese ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on September 20, 2022 Before: CHAGARES, McKEE, and PORTER Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 15,2023) _______________________ OPINION _______________________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Judge McKee assumed senior status on October 21, 2022. McKEE, Circuit Judge. Luis Bolivar Balboa Guaman petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition. I.1 Balboa Guaman’s case centers on two ineffective assistance of counsel claims: the first is based on his experience with attorney Carlos A. Ferrer during his removal proceedings and the second stems from his experience with attorney Arturo Suarez during his attempts to reopen those proceedings. Balboa Guaman accepted voluntary departure on August 26, 2010, on the advice of Attorney Ferrer. On February 1, 2011—then represented by Attorney Suarez—Balboa Guaman filed an untimely motion to reopen with the immigration judge. He argued he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because Attorney Ferrer had not informed him of his right to apply for asylum. The immigration judge denied this motion and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal on April 27, 2012. Balboa Guaman then filed a second untimely motion to reopen on August 7, 2020. He reiterated his arguments that Attorney Ferrer provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel during his initial removal proceedings. He also argued that Attorney Suarez 1 The BIA had jurisdiction to hear Balboa Guaman’s case under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2, which grants it jurisdiction to consider motions to reopen. Our jurisdiction to review the Board’s order is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts of appeals to review most final orders of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 2 provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel in pursuing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim against Attorney Ferrer. The BIA denied this motion. It found that Balboa Guaman failed to show prejudice that resulted from Attorney Suarez’s representation,2 and failed to show changed country conditions that would allow consideration of his untimely motion.3 Balboa Guaman now appeals the finding that he did not establish the prejudice necessary to establish an IAC claim.4 II. To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the noncitizen petitioner must demonstrate that “his lawyer committed unprofessional errors, [and] show that there 2 The BIA’s analysis only addressed claims regarding Attorney Suarez because the Board had already considered and dismissed Balboa Guaman’s appeal of IAC claims regarding Attorney Ferrer in its April 27, 2012, decision. 3 The BIA also may have held that Balboa Guaman failed to comply …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals