Opinion ID: 4529082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Before we address the merits of Calderon-Rosas’s claims, we must address a threshold question: Do we have jurisdiction over ineffective assistance of counsel or procedural due process claims—both of which flow from the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the immigration context, Fadiga, 488 F.3d at 155—made by a petitioner seeking discretionary relief? The question arises because, in this context, “[o]ur jurisdiction . . . is narrowly circumscribed in that it is limited to colorable [constitutional] claims or questions of law,” Pareja v. Att’y Gen., 615 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D), and the Government asserts that petitioners cannot state any cognizable constitutional claim under the Due Process Clause because they lack a protected interest in discretionary relief. The government’s argument, however, is one we have squarely rejected. We long ago recognized that due process claims can be asserted by petitioners seeking discretionary relief because “Congress instructed the Attorney General to establish an asylum procedure,” and “[w]hen Congress directs an agency to establish a procedure . . . it can be assumed that Congress intends that procedure to be a fair one.” Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996) (addressing asylum claim). “[F]airness,” we explained, “mandate[s] that the asylum procedure promulgated by the Attorney General provide the most basic of due process.” Id.; see also Cham v. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 683, 691 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[A]lthough Cham has no constitutional right to asylum, he was entitled, as a matter of due process, to a full and fair hearing on his application.”); Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 369, 373–74 8 (3d Cir. 2003) (“Ponce–Leiva’s brief . . . suggests that counsel’s ineffectiveness was a denial of due process. Accordingly, we may analyze the claim, at least within the parameters of due process.”). More recently, in Serrano-Alberto v. Attorney General, 859 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2017), in exercising jurisdiction over claims for discretionary relief, we reiterated that “petitioners must receive a full and fair hearing that allows them a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on their behalf, and a decision on the merits of their claim by a neutral and impartial arbiter.” Id. at 213 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). That procedural due process right, we explained, is comprised of “three key protections” in immigration proceedings: “(1) ‘factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to him or her’; (2) the opportunity to ‘make arguments on his or her own behalf’; and (3) ‘an individualized determination of his [or her] interests.’” Id. (quoting Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc)). In short, “[t]hroughout all phases of deportation proceedings, petitioners must be afforded due process of law.” Id. As our case law likewise establishes, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are no less cognizable by petitioners seeking discretionary relief. It is by now beyond question that the Due Process Clause guarantees aliens the right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings. Fadiga, 488 F.3d at 155; Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 638 (BIA 1988). And as with procedural due process claims, we have never before discriminated among ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on whether the petitioners raising them sought discretionary or mandatory relief. See, 9 e.g., Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241, 250, 256 (3d Cir. 2006) (granting ineffective-assistance claim and remanding to the BIA for consideration of petitioner’s claims for relief). That is because, as the Second Circuit has explained, “[r]uling on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim does not require us to substitute our discretion for that of the agency; it is simply a determination that the alien was not given a fair hearing because of counsel’s errors.” Omar v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 647,