IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60183

Summary Calendar 

ROBERTO MADRIGALES RODRIGUEZ, 

Petitioner 

v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A205 690 122

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Madrigales Rodriguez petitions this court to review the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings 

based on his previous counsel’s ineffective assistance. Madrigales argues that 

denying his motion to reopen violates his due process rights because an 

immigration judge has never assessed his claims in the first instance. 

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,” reversing only when the decision is 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60183 Document: 00514087070 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2017
No. 16-60183

2 

“capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on 

legally erroneous interpretations of statues or regulations, or based on 

unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” BarriosCantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). To prevail on an 

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the petitioner must show (1) ineffective 

representation and (2) resulting “substantial prejudice.” Miranda-Lores v. 

I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). “Proving prejudice requires the 

[p]etitioner to make a prima facie showing that [the petitioner] would have 

been entitled to relief from deportation[.]” Id. Thus, the assertion that 

Madrigales suffered prejudice merely because an immigration judge has yet to 

hear his claims is insufficient. 

 Madrigales has not made the “prima facie showing” of prejudice. To 

maintain an asylum claim, a petitioner must show that he legitimately fears 

persecution based on “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

social group, or political opinion.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 

518 (5th Cir. 2012). Madrigales argues only that he fears unidentified “gang 

members [and] drug traffickers” because “they” called his mother pretending 

to have kidnapped one of her children. Because Madrigales has not alleged

any well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected category, he has 

failed to show prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See 

Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Withholding is a higher 

standard than asylum. Since [the petitioner] does not meet the bar for asylum, 

he also does not meet the standard for withholding . . . .”). Accordingly, 

Madrigales has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his 

ineffective-assistance claim. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021. We 

therefore DENY his petition for review.

 Case: 16-60183 Document: 00514087070 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2017