21

- 6164 Perez Miguel v. Garland BIA A 097 535 038 

### 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 ELE CTRONIC 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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 1 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Mar shall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on the 7 th da y of July , two thousand twenty

3 two

. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN , 7 BETH ROBINSON , 8 MYRNA PÉREZ

, 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 MARIA ANGELA PEREZ MIGUEL , 13 Petitioner , 14 15

v. 21

- 6164 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL , 19 Respondent

. 20

_____________________________________ 212 1 FOR PETITIONER : Bruno J. Bembi , Hempstead , N Y

. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler , Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General; Leslie McKay , Senior Litigation 5 Counsel ; Rachel Browning , Trial Attorney , 6 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, Washin gton, 8 DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12
DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED. 13

Petitioner Maria Angela Perez Miguel , a native and citize n of Guatemala , 14
petitions for review of the BIA’s February 26, 2021 denial of her motion to 15

reconsider its prior decision affirming an I mmigration J udge ’s (“IJ’s”) denial of 16
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 17
(“CAT”) and rejecting her claim to have received ineffective assistance of counsel 18
before the IJ

. In re Maria Angela Perez Miguel , No. A 097 535 038 (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 19

2021 )

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 20
procedural history. 21

We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See 22
Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). A motion to reconsider 233 “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order

. ” 8 U.S.C. 1
§ 1229a(c)(6) (C) ; see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just

. , 265 2
F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001) (“A motion to reconsider asserts that at the time of the 3

Board ’ s previous decision an error was made.” (quotation marks omitted) )

. “A 4
motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that could have been raised earlier 5
in the proceedings will be denied.” In re O

- S

- G

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (B.I.A. 6
2006). “ T he BIA does not abus e its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider 7
where the motion merely repeats arguments that the BIA has previously rejected.” 8

Khan v. Gonzales , 495 F.3d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and brackets 9

omitted ). 10

The BIA did not abuse its discre tion in declining to reconsider its prior 11
decision because Perez Miguel raised arguments that either ( 1) could have been 12

raised in earlier proceedings or ( 2) were raised and rejected on appeal to the BI A. 1 13

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Khan , 495 F.3d at 36 ; In re O

- S

- G

- , 14

24 I. & N. Dec. at 58 . The BIA also did not err in rejecting Perez Miguel’s 15

1 Even assuming arguendo that the BIA erred in finding that Perez Miguel had waived her challenge to the proposed social group of “ Guatemalan wom [ e ] n who [were] raped and late r threatened , ” ROA at 215, remand on that basis would be futile in light of the alternative adverse credibility determi nation, which was dispositive of her asylum and withholding of removal claims

. See Gurung v. Barr , 929 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that remand is futile “when the [agency] articulates an alternative and sufficient basis for her determination” ( quotation marks omitted)).4 ineffective assistance of counsel claim because she did not comply with the 1
procedural requirements for raising such claims as laid out in Matter of Lozada , 19 2
I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). See Jian Yun Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Just

. , 409 F.3d 43, 3

46

– 47 (2d Cir. 2005) (“ [A] n alien who has faile d to comply substantially with the 4

Lozada requirements . . . before the BIA forfeits her ineffective assistance of counsel 5
claim in this Court.”)

. 6
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending 7
motions and applications are DENIED and all pending stays are VACATED. 8

FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 10 Clerk of Court 11 12 13