[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13115

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MARIA LETICIA GONZALEZ-ALONZO, 

NORMAN MIGUEL FLORES-GONZALEZ, 

JORGE LUIS FLORES-GONZALEZ, 

ARIEL SAID FLORES-GONZALEZ, 

Petitioners,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

USCA11 Case: 21-13115 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13115

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A202-027-102

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Maria Gonzalez-Alonzo and her three children, Norman, 

Jorge, and Ariel (“Petitioners”), petition for review of the order by 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying Petitioners’ 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.1 No reversible error has 

been shown; we deny the petition.

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Honduras, entered the 

United States in June 2014, without admission or inspection. Petitioners were charged as removable and later conceded removability. 

In September 2016, Petitioners applied for asylum, for withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against 

1 In the same order, the BIA also affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision 

denying Petitioners’ applications for asylum, for withholding of removal, and 

for relief under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Petitioners abandon expressly any challenge to the IJ’s and the BIA’s merits-based denial of 

their applications for relief. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13115 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 2 of 6
21-13115 Opinion of the Court 3

Torture (“CAT”).2 Petitioners sought relief based on membership 

in a particular social group identified as “Honduran mother of millennial boys” or “Honduran mother of millennial boys who have 

been solicited for recruitment by criminal organizations.” 

Briefly stated, Petitioners sought relief based on their fear of 

future persecution by gang members who wanted to recruit Maria’s two teenaged sons, Norman and Jorge. At the removal hearing, Maria testified that the gang tried to recruit Norman and Jorge 

to deliver packages of drugs. Norman then testified that he and 

Jorge were targeted by gang members because -- as members of the 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saintes -- he and his brother 

dressed nicely and would not be stopped by the police. At the end 

of the hearing, Petitioners’ lawyer moved to amend the asylum applications filed by Norman and by Jorge to include “religion” as a 

basis for persecution. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted the 

motion. 

The IJ denied Petitioners’ applications for relief. The IJ 

found no nexus between Petitioners’ mistreatment by gang members and a protected ground. The IJ explained that the gang members wanted to recruit Norman and Jorge to enhance their ranks 

and to further the gang’s criminal enterprise. That Norman and 

2 The September 2016 application listed Maria as the lead petitioner and listed 

Norman, Jorge, and Ariel as riders. Norman, Jorge, and Ariel later filed their 

own individual applications for asylum, for withholding of removal, and for 

CAT relief. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13115 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13115

Jorge were church members and were dressed in a certain way because they were going to church was “incidental” to the gang’s motivations, not the “main reason or even one of the main reasons” 

why the gang targeted Norman and Jorge. 

Petitioners appealed to the BIA. In pertinent part, Petitioners argued that their lawyer rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file an asylum application within the one-year deadline and 

by failing to present adequately Petitioners’ religion-based claims 

for relief. 

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision denying Petitioners asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The BIA 

then rejected Petitioners’ ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. 

The BIA determined that Petitioners failed to show prejudice resulting from their lawyer’s purported errors. 

We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent 

the BIA adopts expressly the IJ’s decision. See Gonzalez v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We review de novo

the BIA’s legal conclusions. See id. We review fact determinations 

under the “highly deferential substantial evidence test” whereby 

we “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable, 

substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a 

whole.’” See Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 

2004) (en banc). 

While applicants in civil removal proceedings have no Sixth 

Amendment right to counsel, applicants who have retained 

USCA11 Case: 21-13115 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 4 of 6
21-13115 Opinion of the Court 5

counsel are entitled to effective assistance of that counsel under the 

Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Dakane v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004). To establish ineffective 

assistance of counsel, an applicant must show that his lawyer’s performance “was deficient to the point that it impinged upon the fundamental fairness of the hearing such that the [applicant] was unable to reasonably present his . . . case.” Id. at 1274. 

The applicant must also demonstrate that his lawyer’s deficient performance prejudiced his case. Id. To demonstrate prejudice, the applicant must show that his lawyer’s performance was 

“so inadequate that there is a reasonable probability that but for the 

attorney’s error, the outcome of the proceedings would have been 

different.” Sow v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 949 F.3d 1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 

2020); Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1274. An applicant can establish prejudice by making a prima facie showing that he was eligible for the 

relief sought. See Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1274-75. 

The record supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to show that they were prejudiced by their lawyer’s failure to file timely an asylum application. Although the IJ questioned 

the timeliness of Petitioners’ asylum application, the IJ made no 

finding on timeliness. Instead, the IJ heard testimony and considered the evidence introduced in support of Petitioners’ asylum 

claim. The IJ then denied Petitioners’ asylum claim on the merits. 

Petitioners also contend that their lawyer performed deficiently by failing to assert Petitioners’ religion-based claim earlier 

in the removal proceedings. As a result, Petitioners say their 

USCA11 Case: 21-13115 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13115

lawyer failed to develop adequately the evidence and argument 

supporting that claim. Petitioners, however, have identified no additional evidence or testimony that (if introduced) would have 

likely changed the IJ’s determination that the gang’s recruitment 

efforts were not motivated by Petitioners’ religion. The record 

supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners showed no reasonable probability that -- but for their lawyer’s alleged deficient 

performance -- they would have prevailed on their religion-based 

asylum claim. 

Petitioners have demonstrated no prejudice resulting from 

their lawyer’s alleged deficient performance. We deny the petition. 

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 21-13115 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 6 of 6