Garcia-Maldonado v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 21, 2024
• Docket: 23-246
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN GIOVANN GARCIA- No. 23-246 MALDONADO, Agency No. A206-093-995 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: COLLINS, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Edwin Giovann Garcia-Maldonado petitions this court for review of a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen

his case due to ineffective assistance from his prior counsel. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion,

Reyes-Corado v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 2023), we deny the

petition.

For ineffective assistance of counsel to justify reopening a case, a petitioner

must show “‘substantial prejudice,’ meaning that counsel’s performance was so

inadequate that ‘the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the

alleged violation.’” Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 801 (9th Cir. 2022)

(quoting Grigoryan v. Barr, 959 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2020)). The BIA found

that Garcia-Maldonado failed to show prejudice because he provided no

explanation as to how his prior counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness led to the

agency’s conclusion that there was no connection between Garcia-Maldonado’s

feared harm and any protected characteristic. Garcia-Maldonado does not

challenge this finding on appeal. And, because the agency denied Garcia-

Maldonado’s claims for relief on grounds wholly independent of the Immigration

Judge’s adverse credibility finding, merely showing prejudice as to that finding

alone is insufficient to establish that counsel’s performance may have affected “the

outcome of the proceeding.” Id. (quoting Grigoryan, 959 F.3d at 1240).

Accordingly, Garcia-Maldonado has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion.

See id. at 804.

DENIED.

2 23-246