712 Fed.Appx. 717 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-71230, Roman-Soto v. Sessions

Docket Nº:16-71230
Citation:712 Fed.Appx. 717
Party Name:Paul ROMAN-SOTO, AKA Paul Roman, AKA Paul Soto, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:Reza Athari, Esquire, Attorney, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner Scott Michael Marconda, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Departme...
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 21, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 717

712 Fed.Appx. 717 (9th Cir. 2018)

Paul ROMAN-SOTO, AKA Paul Roman, AKA Paul Soto, Petitioner,

v.

Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71230

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 21, 2018

Submitted February 13, 2018 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A200-963-647

Reza Athari, Esquire, Attorney, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

Scott Michael Marconda, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Paul Roman-Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Roman-Soto’s motion to reopen for his failure to establish prejudice where, even without the alleged ineffective assistance, he would be ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had not accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) ("To show a deprivation of due process caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the alien must show that counsel’s ineffective performance prejudiced h[im]." (citation omitted) ).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in not making a finding as to whether Roman-Sotos former attorney persuaded him to testify falsely, where the determination that he was not prejudiced by any ineffective assistance was dispositive...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP