# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 26 74

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Gerar do Reyes Co rd ov a
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Je ff B. Ses si on s, At to rn ey Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s 1

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 17 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 16 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]
Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Gerar do Reyes Co rd ov a pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an or de r of th e B o a rd of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al of an im m i g r a ti on jud ge ’s or de r de nyin g hi s m ot io n to reo pe n hi s rem ov al pr oc eed in gs

. Co rd ov a m ov ed to reo pe n th e

J e f f B. Ses si on s is au to m at ic al ly su bs ti tu te d pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le o f 1 App el la te Pro ced ur e 4 3( c)(2 ).p r o c e e d i n g s on th e gr ou nd th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e in ad vi si ng hi m to

wit hd raw hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al an d acce pt vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re.

A f t e r care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th e BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n
re jecti ng Co rd ov a’s cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce an d di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al

. See Vale nc ia v. Hold er, 657 F.3 d 74 5, 7 48 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (m ot io ns to reo pe n rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n)

. Had Co rd ov a p u r s u ed hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of

rem ov al , he wou ld ha ve be en req u i r e d t o s h o w th at he di d no t ha ve an y pr io r
co nv ic ti on s th at m ad e hi m in el ig ib le fo r di sc ret io na ry can cel la ti on of rem ov al

. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 b( b) (1 )(C) (al lo win g di sc ret io na ry can cel la ti on of rem ov al fo r al ie n who , in te r al ia , ha s no co nv ic ti on s fo r cert ai n s pe ci fie d o ffen se s) ; And rad e-Zam or a
v. Ly nc h, 81 4 F.3 d 94 5, 94 8, 95 0 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (al ie n be ars bu rd en of sh owi ng el ig ib il it y fo r di sc ret io na ry can cel la ti on o f r e mo v a l). At no ti m e ha s Co rd ov a al le ge d- -m

uc h le ss of

fere d ev id en ce-- th at he do es no t ha v e s u ch a di sq ua li fy in g
co nv ic ti on

. Acco rd in gl y, h e d i d no t sh ow pr ejud ic e res ul ti ng fro m hi s co un se l’s al le ge dl y de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce. See Si ng h v. Ly nc h, 80 3 F.3 d 98 8, 9 9 4 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 15 ) (to be el ig ib le fo r BIA’s di sc ret io na ry rel ie f ba se d on in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un s e l , al ie n m

us t sh ow hi s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was so in effe ct iv e it ren de red pr oc eed in g fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r, an d he was pr ejud ic ed by co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce);

se e al so Dak an e v
. U

. S

. A t t’y Gen ., 39 9 F.3 d 12 69 , 12 74 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (p er
cu ria m ) (p reju di ce ex is ts whe n th ere is reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s al le ge d e rro r, ou tc om e o f pr oc eed in gs wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t).

Acco rd in gl y , we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-