Opinion ID: 5098946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: konneh’s lawyer was effective

Text: Konneh first challenges his lawyer’s performance as ineffective. To win, he must show that the lawyer’s performance “prevented him from reasonably presenting his case and caused him ‘substantial prejudice.’ ” Contreras v. Att’y Gen., 665 F.3d 578, 584 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Fadiga, 488 F.3d at 155). In other words, he must show a “reasonable likelihood that the result would have been different” absent his counsel’s errors. Fadiga, 488 F.3d at 159 (quoting United States v. Charleswell, 456 U.S. 347, 362 (3d Cir. 2006)). Konneh does not meet this standard. He never explains how a better lawyer would have helped. He says his lawyer did not ask him about applying for asylum. But his lawyer insists that both he and his staff asked Konneh if he feared returning to Liberia or wanted to apply for asylum or withholding of removal. At a hearing, the immigration judge even asked Konneh if he was afraid to return. AR 591. Plus, when the judge ordered Konneh removed, he replied, “I want to go back to my country, since I cannot be granted to stay 3 here …. I don’t mind going to my country.” AR 703–04. That request belies his claim that he feared returning. Because Konneh has not shown that his lawyer’s performance was subpar, much less that it likely affected the outcome here, his ineffective-assistance claim fails.