UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1470

OLUNIKE ADERONKE ADEAGA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 15, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013

Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 

General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Craig A. 

Newell, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Olunike Aderonke Adeaga, a native and citizen of the 

United Kingdom, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the 

immigration judge’s order denying her motion for reopening based 

on ineffective assistance of counsel. We deny the petition for 

review. 

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse 

of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013); Mosere v. 

Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). The Board’s “denial 

of a motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given 

that motions to reopen are disfavored because every delay works 

to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to 

remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 

182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will 

reverse the denial of a motion to reopen only if it is 

“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Mosere, 552 F.3d 

at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 

in immigration proceedings, the alien must (1) provide an 

affidavit describing her agreement with counsel; (2) inform 

counsel of the allegations and permit counsel an opportunity to 

respond, and (3) indicate whether a complaint were filed with 

the appropriate disciplinary authorities, and if not, explain 
3

why not. Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (B.I.A. 

1988). 

In addition to complying with the Lozada requirements, 

an alien must demonstrate that she was prejudiced as a result of 

her counsel’s ineffectiveness. Id. at 640 (holding that alien 

must also show that she was prejudiced by counsel’s actions); 

see also Surganova v. Holder, 612 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2010) 

(recognizing that the legal standards for ineffective assistance 

claims in the immigration context are “in a state of flux” and 

noting that, regardless of the standard used, it is still 

necessary for aliens “to demonstrate prejudice resulting from 

the attorney’s substandard performance”); Debeatham v. Holder, 

602 F.3d 481, 485 (2d Cir. 2010). 

We require that aliens raising the ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims in immigration proceedings show at 

least substantial compliance with the Lozada requirements. 

Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 746 (4th Cir. 2006). We will 

review an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if the alien 

substantially complies with the Lozada requirements, “such that 

the BIA could have ascertained the claim was not frivolous and 

otherwise asserted to delay deportation.” Id.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2012), an alien who is 

otherwise removable or inadmissible may apply for cancellation 

of removal. The Attorney General may grant such relief if the 
4

alien shows (1) ten years’ physical presence in the United 

States immediately preceding the application; (2) that she has 

been a person of good moral character during that period; 

(3) has not been convicted of certain offenses; and (4) that her

removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual 

hardship to her parent, spouse or children who are United States 

citizens. 

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in dismissing the appeal. Adeaga failed to show that 

she was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file the application 

for cancellation of removal. She did not show that she had the 

required years of continuous presence or that her removal to the 

United Kingdom would be an exceptional and extremely unusual 

hardship to her husband and United States citizen children. We 

also note she did not substantially comply with the Lozada

requirements. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED