17-830 Singh v. Whitaker BIA Loprest, IJ A205 409 335 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 28th day of November, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LAKHBIR SINGH, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-830 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 28 Assistant Attorney General; 29 Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Assistant 30 Director; Allison Frayer, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 Litigation, United States 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Lakhbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, 9 seeks review of a February 28, 2017, decision of the BIA 10 affirming a May 12, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge 11 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s motion to reopen his removal 12 proceedings. In re Lakhbir Singh, No. A 205 409 335 (B.I.A. 13 Feb. 28, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 409 335 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 14 May 12, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 17 by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 18 Cir. 2005). We review the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to 19 reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 20 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). To state an ineffective assistance 21 of counsel claim, the movant must establish, inter alia, 22 (1) deficient representation; and (2) prejudice as a result 2 1 of that deficiency. Rashid v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 127, 130-31 2 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 The only issue is whether Singh showed the requisite 4 prejudice. A movant seeking to reopen proceedings based on 5 ineffective assistance must show that “counsel’s performance 6 was so ineffective ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals