NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR MANUEL ORTIZ, No. 16-70731 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-760-780 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 10, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,** District Judge. Victor Manuel Ortiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks relief from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of immigration relief. Ortiz alleges that his counsel was ineffective and that he fears persecution if returned to El Salvador because of his membership in a particular social group. Although ably represented * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. by pro bono counsel, who persuasively assert that Ortiz’s prior counsel was ineffective, Ortiz has not shown any nexus between his alleged incidents of persecution and his proposed particular social group. Accordingly, his petition for relief is denied.1 1. After the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Ortiz relief, he filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He then filed a motion to remand based on his prior attorney’s failure to prepare him for his hearing before the IJ. The BIA denied the motion, finding no prejudice, and noting that Ortiz “testified his asylum application was true and correct and he had nothing to add or take away before providing extensive, sworn testimony regarding the specifics of his claim.” We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must first demonstrate that counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence, and second, that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 2004). Although Ortiz’s motion to remand made a strong argument that his former attorney performed deficiently, the motion failed to allege any nexus between the 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this application, we do not discuss them at length here. 2 proposed particular social group (residing in a particular neighborhood in San Salvador) and the incidents of persecution that Ortiz alleged. Accordingly, Ortiz has not shown that the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand was an abuse of discretion. 2. The BIA denied Ortiz’s asylum claim, finding that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous, that Ortiz “did not distinguish his claim from analogous claims involving a fear of extortion, general lawlessness, and crime which do not implicate a protected ground under the Act,” and “did not meet his burden of proving a nexus between the harm he experienced and a particular social ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals