[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 85 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 94 -0 56 -4 20 MIS AEL GARCIA, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 3, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r Mi sa el Garci a, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof El Sal va do r, se ek s re vi ew of th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al ’s (“ BIA”) de ni al of h is m ot io n t o re op en Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 1 of 6rem ov al pro ceed in gs . Garci a so ug httem po rary pro te ct edst atus be fo re the ag en cy , bu t the BIA affi rm edth e Immig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io n ba se d upo n t he factth atGarci a h adtwo Flo rid a st at e co nv ic ti on s, o ne forpe ti t th eftan d o ne fortre sp as s o n l an d, b ot h o f whi chare m is de m ean or s. Inhi s m ot io n to reo pe n re m ov al pro ceed in gs , Garci a co nc ed edth atth e BIA p ro pe rly den ie d te m po rary pro te ct edst atus ba se d upo n h is co nv ic ti on s. No ne th el es s, h e p res en te d ev id en ce tha t, al th ou gh he so ug htto va cat e b ot h o f hi s co nv ic ti on s, h is att orne y s (“po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l” ) ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y fai li ng to pro pe rly fil e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io ns , th ereb y jus ti fy in g re op en in g. Garci a n ow ar gu es th atth e BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d eny in g h is m ot io n to reo pe n re m ov al pro ceed in gs by: (1) requi rin g h im to sh ow tha t n ew ev id en ce wou ldli ke ly chan ge th e res ul t o f hi s ca se in st eadof a na lyzin g wh ethe r po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was so in ad equa te th atth e o ut co m e m ay ha ve be enaffe ct ed ; (2 ) requi rin g h im to pro du ce ev id en ce tha t was un av ai labl e, an d c ou ldno t h av e b eendi sc ov eredor p res en te d a t h is form er h eari ng ; (3 ) co nc lu di ng th athi s ev id en ce was imm at eri al be cau se hi s p ur su itof po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f di d n otalt er i ts pre vi ou s fi nd in g t ha t h is co nv ic ti on s rem ai ne d v al idforimm ig rat io n p ur po se s, an d t ha t h e rem ai ne d i ne li gi bl e fo r te m po rary pro te ct edst atus reg ard le ss of wh ethe r po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l p ro pe rly 2 Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 2 of 6fil edpo st -co nv ic ti on m ot io ns ; an d (4 ) fai li ng to ad equa te ly con si de r hi s ev id en ce

an d c la im s, an d e xp la in it s d eci si on . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Zh an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 2 F .3d13 16 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Rev ie w is li m it edto de te rm in in g “ whe th er the BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n a n arb it rary or cap ric io us m an ne r.” Id . A m ot io n t o re op enm us t s tate ne w fact s tha t wil l b e p ro ve n a t a h eari ng , andwil l n otbe gra nt edun le ss th e ev id en ce s ou gh t t o be off eredis m at eri al an d was un av ai labl e an d c ou ldno t h av e b eendi sc ov eredor pr es en te d a t the form er h eari ng . INA § 2 40 (c)( 7) (B), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (B); 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(1 ); Vera no -Velas co v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 45 6 F .3d13 72 , 13 76 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Evid en ce i s “ ne w” whe re i t was un av ai labl e atth e ti m e o f th e al ie n’s re m ov al he ari ng . Se e Ver an o- Vela sc o , 45 6 F .3dat 1 37 7. Lik ewis e, ev id en ce i s “ m at eri al ” if

itwou ldli ke ly chan ge th e res ul t i n the cas e upo n reo pe ni ng . Se e Ji an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 56 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 56 -5 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Thu s, anali enm ov in g t o re op enhi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs be ars a “ he av y bu rd en ,” an d m us t p res en t ev id en ce tha t s at is fie s the BIA th atth e n ew ev id en ce o ffer ed wou ldli ke ly chan ge th e res ul t o f th e cas e. Aliv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 3 F .3d80 4, 81 3 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 6) (ci ti ng In re Coe lh o , 20 I. & N. Dec. 46 4, 4 73 (BIA 1 99 2) ). A fai lu re t o p ro du ce m at eri al an d p rev io us ly una va il ab le ev id en ce jus ti fie s the 3 Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 3 of 6de ni al of am ot io n t o re op en . Se e Liv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 48 8 F .3d13 71 , 13 74 -7 5

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Ali en s h av e a Fi fth Am en dm en t due pro ces s ri gh t t o e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i n t he co nt ex t o f a rem ov al he ari ng , anda cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e of co un se l m ay

form th e b as is of am ot io n t o re op en . Se e Dak an e v. U.S. At t’y Gen . , 39 9 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 -7 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) . In o rd er t o e st ab li sh in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, the ali enm us t d em on st rat e th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntto th e p oi ntth atitim pi ng edup on th e fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s o f th e h eari ng so th atth e al ie n was un ab le to reas on ab ly pres en t h is cas e. Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Add it io na ll y , th e al ie n m us t d em on st rat e th atco un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedhi m , whi chrequi res a sh owi ng th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, the ou tc om e o f th e pr oc eed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t. Se e id . at 1 27 4. No ne th el es s, a s ta te co urt is th e p ro pe r fo rum

fora co ll at eral att ackup on a st at e co nv ic ti on . Se e Mo ha mmed v. Ash cr of

t , 26 1 F .3d12 44 , 12 51 (11 thCir . 20 01 ) (n ot in g t ha t wh ere t he pe ti ti on er al le ge d a n e rro r with re sp ectto a st at e co urt co nv ic ti on th e p ro pe r rem edy was a co ll at eral att ackup on th atco nv ic ti on inth e st at e co urt). The Att orne y

Gene ral m ay

gra nttem

po rary pro te ct edst atus to ali en s wh o are n at io na ls of d es ig na te d fo rei gn st at es an d m eetot he r requi rem en ts . INA 4 Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 4 of 6§ 2 44 A(a)(1 ), (b ), (c), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 4a (a)( 1) , (b) , (c); 8 C.F .R. § 1 24 4.2 . An

al ie n i s i ne li gi bl e fo r te m po rary pro te ct edst atus , ho wev er, i f he ha s b een co nv ic te d o f two or m or e m is de m ean or s tha t wer e co m mit te d i n the Uni te d S ta te s. INA § 2 44 A(c)(2 )(B) (i) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 4a (c)( 2) (B)( i); 8 C.F .R. § 1 24 4.4 (a). Th e Att orne y Gene ral m

us t wi th dr aw te m

po rary pro te ct edst atus th atwas g ran te d t o a n al ie n i f th e al ie n i s, i n fa ct , in el ig ib le fortem po rary pro te ct edst atus . INA § 2 44 A(c)(3 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 4a (c)( 3) (A). The BIA m

us t co ns id er al l o f th e ev id en ce i nt ro du cedby the m ov an t, b ut do es no t h av e to sp eci fic al ly addres s ea chcla im or p ie ce o f ev id en ce wh ere i t gi ve s re as on edco ns id erat io n t o t he m ot io n andm ak es ad equa te fin di ng s. Se e Ta n v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 6 F .3d13 69 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Non ethe le ss , th e BIA m us t an no un ce i ts de ci si on interm s s uf fic ie ntto en ab le us “ to pe rcei ve th atitha s he ardan d tho ug htan d n otm erel y reac te d.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the BIA co rrec tl y requi redGarci a to sh ow th atne w evi de nc e wou ldli ke ly chan ge th e res ul t o f hi s ca se an d p ro du ce ev id en ce th atwas u na va il ab le an d c ou ldno t h av e b eendi sc ov eredor p res en te d a t h is fo rm er h eari ng . Becau se Garci a h adtwo m is de m ean orco nv ic ti on s an d c ou ldno t co ll at eral ly atta ck

th em inth e imm ig rat io n p ro ceed in gs , hi s ev id en ce tha t po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce was imm at eri al , as i t d id 5 Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 5 of 6no t d em on st rat e th athe was e li gi bl e fo r te m po rary pro te ct edst atus . Fin al ly, th e BIA co ns id eredGarci a’s ev id en ce, g av e h is cla im s re as on edco ns id erat io n, an d ad equa te ly exp la in edit s d eci si on . Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitde ni edGarci a’s m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs . Acco rd in gl y , we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

6 Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 6 of 6