USCA11 Case: 20-10508 Date Filed: 04/22/2021 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10508 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A201-233-584 SHIEKH AMODOU NYANG, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 22, 2021) Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Shiekh Nyang petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his second motion to reopen his removal proceedings USCA11 Case: 20-10508 Date Filed: 04/22/2021 Page: 2 of 10 (“second motion”) based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which he filed pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240(c)(7)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). He argues that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his equitable tolling argument and his ineffective assistance of counsel arguments raised in support of his second motion. After reading the parties’ briefs and reviewing the record, we grant the petition for review. I. Shiekh Nyang is a native and citizen of Gambia who claims that he entered the United States in 1996 on a B-2 visa with his mother and brother when he was five years old. Nyang’s mother, father, and brothers all live in the United States, as do his wife and son, who was born in 2010. Nyang has been married since 2015 to Chanel McCormick, a United States citizen. In March 2011, the Department of Homeland Security issued him a notice to appear (“NTA”), charging him as removable under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for being an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Nyang failed to appear at his removal hearing, and an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered him removed in absentia. In November 2018, Nyang, through counsel, filed his first motion to reopen, conceding that he had received notice of the removal hearing via his counsel. The first motion also contended that Nyang was eligible for adjustment of status, relief under a pending I-130 petition by his 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10508 Date Filed: 04/22/2021 Page: 3 of 10 citizen spouse, and relief under a previously filed E-42B application. The first motion claimed that Nyang missed the April 2016 hearing due to erroneous instructions from his GPS and advice from a bus driver. The first motion asserted that Nyang’s sincere error in arriving late to the hearing and his depression constituted exceptional circumstances that provided grounds for reopening. The first motion contained an ostensibly self-written and signed letter by Nyang’s wife that she had left Nyang because of their homelessness and unemployment status. The letter noted that Nyang had appeared at all hearings prior to this one, and the letter contained misspellings of Nyang’s first name. The IJ denied the first motion, noting that it had been untimely filed because it was filed more than 180 days after the date of the removal order. The IJ also concluded that, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals