Case: 18-60324 Document: 00514985749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60324 June 6, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SONIA GUADALUPE SERRANO-AMAYA; GRISELDA EMERLINDA SERRANO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioners v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 377 869 BIA No. A208 377 870 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sonia Guadalupe Serrano-Amaya and Griselda Emerlinda Serrano- Hernandez (the Petitioners), seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. They claim that (1) they received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with their removal proceedings that amounted to a violation of * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-60324 Document: 00514985749 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2019 No. 18-60324 due process, and (2) they are entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Motions to reopen are disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). Ineffective assistance of counsel claim The Petitioners assert that their counsel in removal proceedings performed deficiently because he failed to assert that they belonged to the particular social groups of “informants” and “immediate or nuclear family members” of Serrano-Amaya’s husband, who was killed when he refused to join a gang. They contend that they were persecuted in the past, and that they fear persecution and are likely to be persecuted in the future, based on their membership in these particular social groups. They argue that, had counsel provided constitutionally adequate representation, they would have been granted asylum or withholding of removal. To prevail on such a claim, the Petitioners must demonstrate substantial prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficient performance. See Gutierrez- Morales v. Homan, 461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir. 2006). Proving substantial prejudice requires a prima facie showing that, absent counsel’s deficient performance, the applicant would have been entitled to the relief sought. Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, the record reflects that Serrano-Amaya reported the murder of her husband, and several gang members were subsequently imprisoned for the killing. As the BIA determined, threats were made against Serrano-Amaya based on the desire of one or more gang members to avoid, or extract revenge for, suffering the consequences of their criminal behavior. Thus, assuming 2 Case: 18-60324 Document: 00514985749 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2019 No. 18-60324 arguendo that “informants” and “immediate nuclear family members” of Serrano-Amaya’s husband constitute particular social groups, the Petitioners cannot show substantial prejudice from counsel’s failure to propose such groups because aliens who are ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals