USCA11 Case: 20-10655 Date Filed: 11/04/2020 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10655 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A088-490-356 RIGOBERTO VALDEZ SALAZAR, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 4, 2020) Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-10655 Date Filed: 11/04/2020 Page: 2 of 11 Rigoberto Guadalupe Valdez Salazar seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his second motion to reopen. Salazar argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his two former attorneys withdrew his application for cancellation of removal without his consent, misled him into accepting voluntary departure, and failed to properly assert his rights in his first motion to reopen. For the following reasons, we grant Salazar’s petition and remand for further proceedings. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without permission at an unknown location in July 1996. He has remained in the United States since that time and fathered two children, both of whom are United States citizens. On February 2, 2008, following his arrest for a minor traffic infraction, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) filed a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) with the immigration court initiating removal proceedings against Salazar. The NTA charged removability on the grounds that Salazar was present in the United States without being admitted or paroled under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Salazar retained Robert Piccarreto as counsel to assist him with an application for cancellation of removal, and on July 29, 2008, Salazar with Piccarreto appeared before the IJ for his master calendar hearing. At the hearing, Salazar, through his 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10655 Date Filed: 11/04/2020 Page: 3 of 11 counsel, admitted the factual allegations in the NTA and filed an application for cancellation of removal or, in the alternative, voluntary departure. On October 10, 2012, Salazar, again with Piccarreto, appeared at a second hearing. The record does not expressly reveal what happened at the October hearing, although the events of that hearing remain relevant. Salazar claims that, minutes before the hearing, Piccarreto informed him in English and without a translator that he must withdraw his application for cancellation of removal and accept voluntary departure. Although he did not understand what Piccarreto was saying, Salazar followed his attorney’s instructions and signed and initialed the document requesting voluntary departure. What is clear from the record is that, during the hearing, Piccarreto, on behalf of Salazar, withdrew the application for cancellation of removal and submitted the voluntary departure request. The IJ granted Salazar pre-conclusion voluntary departure, allegedly issued the required advisals about the consequences of voluntary departure, and ordered Salazar to depart the United States by February 7, 2013. Salazar, however, did not depart. On March 8, 2018—more than six years after he was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals