Opinion ID: 169469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: M otion to Reopen

Text: M r. Rivera-Bottzeck filed a motion to reopen alleging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argued that his counsel abandoned him -13- after the hearing before the IJ, in breach of their fee agreement, and as a result he was forced to file his post-hearing brief pro se, with inadequate access to immigration-related legal materials at the state prison where he was incarcerated. The BIA denied the motion on two grounds. First, it concluded that the evidence of ineffective assistance he submitted was previously available under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Second, the BIA held that he failed to establish prejudice because the motion did not include evidence demonstrating that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony. W e hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying M r Rivera-Bottzeck’s motion to reopen because he failed to establish any prejudice. Petitioner argues only that it is clear he was denied an opportunity to fairly present his claims after being abandoned by his counsel and forced to proceed on his ow n w ithout adequate legal materials. Because deportation proceedings are civil in nature, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a deportation proceeding may be based only on the Fifth A mendment guarantee of due process. As a result, an alien must show that his counsel’s ineffective assistance so prejudiced him that the proceeding was fundamentally unfair. Akinwunmi v. INS, 194 F.3d 1340, 1341 n.2 (10th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citations omitted). As the BIA noted, with his motion to reopen he still did not present any evidence that he had not been convicted of an aggravated felony. Nor does he indicate on appeal how the outcome of his removal hearing would have been different if his counsel had prepared the post-hearing brief or if he had -14- access to additional legal materials. Thus, his lack of counsel and legal materials in that effort did not implicate the fundamental fairness of the proceeding. M r. Rivera-Bottzeck’s final argument is that the BIA failed to address, in its denial of his motion to reopen, his claim that he was deprived of adequate legal materials, resulting in a denial of his constitutional right of access to the courts. He asks for remand to the BIA to allow it to consider that claim. W e conclude that remand is not necessary. In his motion petitioner characterized his arguments as “claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,” Admin. R. at 45, and he described his lack of access to legal materials as a consequence of his counsel’s ineffective assistance. W e conclude that the BIA sufficiently considered and addressed his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in their entirety. Its conclusion that he failed to show prejudice applies equally to his argument regarding lack of access to legal materials. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 (1996) (holding prisoner must “demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded”) (footnote omitted). 5 Therefore, the BIA’s failure to explicitly discuss that aspect of his claim was not a failure to exercise its discretion or an abuse of discretion. W e hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying M r. Rivera-Bottzeck’s motion to reopen. 5 W e do not decide here the parameters of a prisoner’s due process right to adequate legal materials for use in a removal proceeding. -15- The petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner’s motion to proceed without prepaym ent of costs or fees is G RANTED. Entered for the Court M ichael R. M urphy