Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02301/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02301-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Rosa Maria Paz
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2301

___________

Rosa Maria Paz, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board of 

* Immigration Appeals

John Ashcroft, United States *

Attorney General, * [Unpublished]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: October 29, 2004

Filed: November 24, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rosa Maria Paz, a Guatemalan citizen, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motions to reopen and for

reconsideration, in which she contended that she had been denied due process in her

asylum proceedings because her counsel had been ineffective. For reversal, she

argues that her counsel’s suspension from practicing law showed per se that she was

prejudiced by counsel’s representation, and she points out numerous deficiencies by

counsel to show further prejudice. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the

petition.

Appellate Case: 03-2301 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2004 Entry ID: 1837821 
-2-

We review for abuse of discretion denials of motions to reopen and for

reconsideration, see De Jimenez v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 783, 790 (8th Cir. 2004)

(motion for reconsideration); Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 805, 807 (8th Cir.

2003) (motion to reopen), and we find none here because Paz did not show that she

was prejudiced by Burns’s representation. See Nativi-Gomez, 344 F.3d at 807

(noting that alien in deportation proceeding has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel

but does have due process rights, and that some courts have found ineffective

assistance of counsel as basis for due process violation, but the court did not decide

the question); Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (due process

challenges to deportation proceedings require showing of prejudice to succeed;

prejudice is found when counsel’s performance was so inadequate that it may have

affected outcome of proceedings). Paz’s asylum application was originally denied

because she showed no nexus between her alleged past persecution and her political

opinion, imputed or otherwise; and when moving to reopen and for reconsideration,

Paz again showed no evidence of a nexus. 

Additionally, we disagree with Paz that an attorney’s suspension shows

prejudice per se, cf. United States v. Ross, 338 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2003) (per

curiam) (attorney’s bar status is not dispositive of Sixth Amendment ineffectiveassistance claim), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1187 (2004); and we are not persuaded by

the examples Paz has given of how she was prejudiced by counsel’s representation.

For example, Paz’s application, although initially incomplete, was completed by the

immigration judge at the hearing; pictures of Paz’s home burning were submitted at

hearing; and the assistant mayor’s letter was read into the record at the hearing.

Further, Paz fails to explain how witness testimony (which she does not specify) and

her mother’s letter could have changed the outcome of the asylum proceedings; and

even if counsel made no objections or a closing argument at the hearing, it was not

a formal trial subject to evidentiary rules, see Henry v. INS, 74 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.

1996) (traditional rules of evidence do not apply in immigration hearings). 

Appellate Case: 03-2301 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2004 Entry ID: 1837821 
-3-

Accordingly, we deny the petition. 

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2301 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/24/2004 Entry ID: 1837821