09-3434-ag

Yadgarov v. Holder

BIA

A097 526 418

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR

AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 31 day of August, two thousand ten. st

5

6 PRESENT:

7 GUIDO CALABRESI,

8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

9 REENA RAGGI,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _________________________________________

12

13 ATKHAMZHAN YADGAROV,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 09-3434-ag

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent.

21 _________________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Alexander J. Segal, Grinberg &

24 Segal, P.L.L.C., New York, 

25 New York.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

28 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant

29 Director; William C. Minick,

30 Attorney, Office of Immigration

31 Litigation, United States Department

32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Atkhamzhan Yadgarov, a native of the former

6 Soviet Union and citizen of Kazakhstan, seeks review of the

7 July 23, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to

8 reopen. In re Yadgarov, No. A097 526 418 (B.I.A. July 23,

9 2009). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

10 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517

11 (2d Cir. 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

12 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

13 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

14 Yadgarov’s motion based on its finding that he failed to

15 show that his former counsel’s conduct was prejudicial. See

16 Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1994); Esposito v.

17 INS, 987 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that to

18 prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a

19 petitioner must show that competent counsel would have acted

20 otherwise and that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s

21 conduct). To show prejudice, Yadgarov contends that his

22 attorney failed to instruct him to get documents from
3

1 Kazakhstan to support his claims of persecution, implying

2 that such documents existed and would have proved helpful. 

3 But, he testified that he had asked family members to send

4 him a statement weeks in advance of his removal hearing, and

5 he has failed to show what documents he would have produced

6 had he received different advice from counsel. Although

7 Yadgarov further contends that his attorney failed to show

8 him a copy of the document purported to be his personal

9 statement, he testified that he wrote the statement himself

10 and gave no other indication during the proceedings before

11 the IJ that the statement was fabricated. Under these

12 circumstances, it was within the Board’s discretion to

13 conclude that better advice would have made no material

14 difference. 

15 Finally, because Yadgarov does not challenge the BIA’s

16 denial insofar as it construed his motion as a motion to

17 reconsider, we do not address that portion of the BIA’s

18 opinion. 

19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
4

1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

5 FOR THE COURT: 

6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

7

8

9