A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT M AR CE L O B E RN AB E - OR DUNO,

P eti ti o n er, v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 9580 ( N o. A 95- 612- 819) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

M ar cel o B ernabe- O r duno, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M exi co, pet i t i ons for re v iew o f

th e B u re a u o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls’ (B IA ) d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to r eopen hi s i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e D E N Y the p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w.-2- I. M r. B e rn a b e so u g h t ca n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l b a se d o n th e h a rd sh ip h is U n ite d S ta te s -c itiz e n c h ild re n w o u ld e x p e ri e n c e if h e w e re re m o v e d to M e x ic o . T he i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) found thatM r . B ernabe ha d notes t abl i s hed the chi l dr en w oul d exper i ence “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p, ” as r e q u i r e d fo rr e l i e f

u n d e rI mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i tyAc t§ 2 4 0 A, 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 9 b , an d d en ied th e p eti ti o n . T h e B IA ad o p ted a n d affirm ed the IJ’s deci s i on. M r . B ernabe f i l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew i n thi s court( appea l N o. 06- 9539) and ar gued hi s couns el had bee n i neffect i ve. W e di s m i s s ed appe al N o . 0 6 -9 5 3 9 fo r la c k o f ju risd ictio n b e c a u se M r. B e rn a b e h a d n o t b ro u g h t h is i n e ffe c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e a r g u me n t s t o th e BI A b e fo r e p e t i t i o n i n g fo rr e v i e w. Wh i l e a p p e a l No . 0 6 - 9 5 3 9 wa s p e n d i n g , M r . Be rn a b e fi l e d b e fo r e th e BI A a m ot i on t o r eopen a r gui ng thathi s couns el w as i neffect i ve i n thr ee r es pect s ( 1) fai l i ng t o pr es entevi dence of har ds hi p t o the chi l dr en, ( 2) fai l i ng t o pr epar e for the hea r i ng, and ( 3) fai l i ng t o fi l e a br i ef on a ppeal . I n s uppor t , he att ache d a l ett erfr om a cl i ni cal ps y chol ogi s tthats t at ed “i tw as not ed thattw o qual i fy i ng A m er i can c i t i zens i n the fa m i l y , [the tw o s chool - age c hi l dr en] , w er e r ece i vi ng s peci al educa t i on as s i s t ance . . . forl earni ng pr obl ems. ” A dm i n. R . at15. T he p sy c h o lo g ist sta ted h e w a s s e e k in g f u rth e r in fo rm a tio n f

ro m th e c h ild re n ’s s c h o o l, and he c oncl uded:I n Inf anz on , thi s courts t at ed, “[o] nl yw her e j udi ci al r evi ew of the 1 un derl y i ng order i s precl ud ed is den i al of a su bsequ ent m oti on t o reope n als o pr ecl uded. ” 386 F. 3d at1362. T he r es pondentdoes notar gue thatthi s s t at ement (c o n tin u e d ...) -3- Shoul d i tbe det erm i ned thatthes e chi l dr en have s peci al educa t i on needs due t o di s abi l i t i es , thes e di s abi l i t i es and the r es ul t i ng s peci al n e e d s wo u l d b e p a r to f a n a r g u me n tfo rth e p r e s e n c e o f e x tr e me h ard sh ip to [ the c h il d ren ] fro m the d ep o rt ati o n o f th eir fath er, M r. M a rc e lo B e rn a b e . T h e in fo rm a tio n th a t I h a v e b e e n a b le to obt ai n thus fari ndi cat ed thats uch di s abi l i t i es and s peci al needs do e x ist. I w i l l be i n cont i nuous cont actw i th y ours t aff r egar di ng thi s cas e and pr ovi de y ou a fi nal r eportw hen al l the dat a ar e ava i l abl e. Id. T he admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d does notcont ai n anyfur thercomm uni cat i on fr om th e p s y c h o lo g is t. T he B I A det erm i ned thatM r . B ernabe ha d nots how n anypr ej udi ce f r om h is c o u n se l’s a lleg e d lyd e ficie n t p e rfo rm a n c e . It state d th a t “[ t]h e re c o rd re flec ts th a t th e re sp o n d e n t’s c h ild re n a re h e a lth y(T r. at 1 4 ), th e ya re d o in g w e ll i n sc h o o l (T r. at 1 2 , 2 4 ), th e ysp e a k so m e S p a n ish (T r. at 1 3 , 2 6 ) a n d th e re is fa m ily in M ex ico (T r. at 17 -18 , 2 7 ), ” a n d that “the resp o n d en t has n o t com e fo rw ard w i th anyaddi t i onal per s onal i zed fact s orevi dence thatw as notpr es ent ed atthe m er i t s hear i ng. ” A dm i n. R . at2- 3. I tal s o s t at ed thatcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e a bri ef did no tharm M r. B ernabe b ecause the app eal w as adj ud i cat ed o n the m eri t s. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n to re o p e n . Inf anz on v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “W e re v iew the B IA ’s 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 forecl oses our exerci se of j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal as a w ho l e. H e do es, h o w e v e r, ra ise a sim ilar a rg u m e n t. C iti n g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B ), h e a ss e rts thatw e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o det erm i ne w hethercouns el ’ s om i s s i ons pr ej udi ced M r . B ernabe be caus e w e ca nnoteval uat e w hetherthe new evi dence coul d have a l t er ed the out come of hi s cas e, as the ul t i m at e har ds hi p det erm i nat i on i s an age ncyj udgm entcal l . N otw i ths t andi ng § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) , beca us e the q u e stio n o f

in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l in im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s is g ro u n d e d in th e c o n s titu tio n a l c la im o f a d u e -p ro c e s s v io la tio n , s ee A ki nw unm iv. I NS , 194 F. 3d 1340, 1341 n. 2 ( 10th C i r . 1999) , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der M r. B ern ab e’s c lai m u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ) . -4- deci s i on on a mot i on t o r eopen onl yforan abus e of di s cr et i on. T he B I A abus es its d isc re tio n w h e n its d e c isio n p ro v id e s n o ra tio n a l ex p lan a tio n , ine x p lica b ly d e p a rts f

ro m e sta b lish e d p o licie s, is d e v o id o f a n yre a so n in g , o r c o n tain s o n ly s um m aryorconcl us orys t at ement s . ” Id . (qu o tat ion an d alt era ti o n o m itted). M r . B ernabe f

i r s tchal l enges the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thathe di d nots uffe r pr ej udi ce f

r om couns el ’ s al l egedl yi neffect i ve as s i s t ance . M r . B ernabe c om pl ai ns th a t h is c o u n se l (1 ) fa iled to p re p a re h im a n d h is d a u g h ter to tes tify , (2 ) fa iled to dis cov er and p res ent evi den ce of his chil dren’s l earni ng dis abil i t i es t o est abli sh e x tr e m e h a rd s h ip , a n d (3 ) fa ile d to file a b ri e f fo r t h e B IA a p p e a l. A n a lien in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s d o e s n o t h a v e a S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to th e e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Ak i n wu n mi v . I NS , 1 9 4 F .3 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 1 n .2 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . “B eca us e [r emoval ] pr ocee di ngs ar e ci vi l i n natur e, a cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n a [r emoval ] pr ocee di ng m aybe bas ed onl yon the Fi fth A m endmentguar ant ee of due pr oces s . ” Id. U nderthi s s t andar d, “an al i en musts how thathi s couns el ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance s o pr ej udi ced hi m that-5-

the pr ocee di ng w as fundament al l yunfai r . ” Id. In o ther c ir cu m stan ce s, this co u rt has hel d thatthe s t andar d fors how i ng pr ej udi ce i n connec t i on w i th a funda m ent al fa i rn e s s i n q u i ryi s “ wh e th e rth e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d ” th a tth e o u t c o me w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. Un itedS ta tes v . A g u irr e -Te llo , 353 F. 3d 1199, 1209 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c). M r. B e rn a b e h a s n o t sh o w n a re a so n a b le lik e lih o o d th a t th e o u tco m e o f h is p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t h a d c o u n s e l ta k e n th e a c tio n s h e id e n tifie s . Fi r s t , he has nots peci fi ed how hi s t es t i m onyand thatof hi s daught erw oul d have di ffe r ed had c ouns el pr epar ed them t o t es t i fy , and he ha s notes t abl i s hed a re a so n a b le lik e lih o o d th a t su c h p re p a ra tio n w o u ld h a v e c h a n g e d th e re su lt i n h is cas e. Second, he has notes t abl i s hed thathi s chi l dr en ac tual l ydo have l earni ng di s or der s , w hatthos e di s or der s m i ghtbe, w hattype of tr eatm entm i ghtbe nece s s ary , and thats uch tr eatm entw oul d be unava i l abl e i n M exi co. T he l i m i t ed i nform at i on offe r ed bythe ps y chol ogi s t ’ s l ett erfal l s s hor tof s how i ng a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood thatthe age ncyw oul d have found “exc ept i onal and ex tr em elyu n u su al ha rdsh ip” h ad co u n sel p erfo rm ed d iffe ren tl y . M o reo v er, M r. B e rn a b e fa ils to e x p lain th e c o n tra d ictio n b e tw e e n h is n e w e v id e n c e a n d h is t es t i m onybefor e the I J thathi s tw o s chool - age c hi l dr en w er e not“r ece i vi ng any s peci al educa t i onal hel p atal l i n thei rs chool i ng” and, t o hi s know l edge, they w e re “ p ro g re ss in g n o rm a lly .” A d m in . R . at 9 5 -9 6 ; s e e a ls o id . at10 6-07 (ol dest chi l d’ s t es t i m onythats he enj oy ed s chool and thats he di d w el l i n s chool ) . A nd-6-

thi r d, M r . B ernabe doe s noti ndi cat e w hatar gum ent s couns el s houl d have pr es ent ed i n hi s br i ef be for e the B I A ors how how fi l i ng a br i ef mi ghthave change d the r es ul ti n hi s appea l . A s the B I A not ed, M r . B ernabe’ s appea l w as not dis m i ssed for fai l ure t o p rosecut e— the B IA decided iton the m eri t s. M r. B e rn a b e a lso a rg u e s th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yfa ili n g to c o n s id e r t h e a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e h e s u b m itte d (n a m e ly, th e p s y c h o lo g is t’ s le tte r) . T h e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e B IA fa iled to c o n sid e r th e lette r. W h ile th e B IA d id s t at e thatM r . B ernabe “ has notcome for w ar d w i th anyaddi t i onal per s onal i zed fa c ts o r e v id e n c e th a t w a s n o t p re se n ted a t th e m e rits h e a rin g ,” A d m in . R . at 3 , it d o e s n o t fo llo w th a t th e B IA n e c e ss a rilyig n o re d th e lette r. T h e lette r fa iled to offe ranyconcr et e, s peci fi c i nform at i on, and ther efor e i tr eas onabl ycan be d e s c ri b e d a s n o t o ffe ri n g “ a d d itio n a l p e rs o n a liz e d fa c ts o r e v id e n c e .” T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen. T he p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w i s DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge