Court Opinion

ID: 9366474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 19:00:44.265947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:52.663400
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60044         Document: 00516624128               Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                        No. 22-60044
                                                                                            FILED
                                                                                     January 26, 2023
                                      Summary Calendar
                                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk
   Henok Hundessa Jola,

                                                                                      Petitioner,

                                              versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                     Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A215 911 845

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Henok Hundessa Jola, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of
   a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen
   his immigration proceedings.
         Review of a motion to reopen is disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216
   F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we review such denials under a

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60044      Document: 00516624128           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                     No. 22-60044

   “highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Id. This standard requires
   a ruling to stand, even if we conclude that it is erroneous, “so long as it is not
   capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or
   otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any
   perceptible rational approach.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir.
   2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The Board did not abuse its discretion by denying Jola’s motion. A
   successful motion to reopen must be based on evidence that is both material
   and previously unavailable. See I.N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).
   Here, Jola has not shown that evidence relating to translation errors was
   previously unavailable. Nor has he shown that the new evidence he submitted
   with his motion materially relates to the specific negative credibility factors
   that initially doomed his claim. And while Jola disputes the merits of the
   negative credibility factors directly, those arguments are not properly before
   us. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Jola also has not shown that reopening is warranted based on the
   actions of his prior counsel. Ineffective assistance requires “a reasonable
   probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
   proceeding would have been different.” See Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222,
   228 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here,
   Jola has not shown that the actions of his prior counsel directly relate to the
   specific negative credibility factors that the Board relied on.
          Jola’s petition is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

                                           2