Court Opinion

ID: 9409963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 21:01:13.879895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.501840
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               JUL 19 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS FLORES,                                No.   22-222

              Petitioner,                        Agency No.
                                                 A200-199-431
 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted July 17, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Luis Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure, on

account of ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by

8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA issues its own opinion, “[w]e review

only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s

opinion.” Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). We review

for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and the BIA’s

decision “may only be reversed if it is ‘arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.’”

Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Perez v. Mukasey, 516

F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008)). Because the parties are familiar with the factual

background, we need not recount it here. We grant the petition for review in part

and deny in part.

                                            I

      Flores contends that his former counsel was ineffective because he failed to

submit a brief or statement in support of Flores’s appeal before the BIA, after

indicating he would do so in the notice of appeal. “To show a deprivation of due

process caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the [noncitizen] must show

that counsel’s ineffective performance prejudiced [him]. Prejudice results when

the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the

                                            2
outcome of the proceedings.” Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899–900 (9th Cir.

2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “‘The failure to file a

necessary document creates a presumption of prejudice[,]’ rebutted only when the

[noncitizen] lacks plausible grounds for relief.” Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879,

887 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hernandez-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 537 F.3d 976, 979

(9th Cir. 2007)). Because Flores’s applications for asylum and withholding “lack[]

plausible grounds for relief,” Singh, 658 F.3d at 887, we deny Flores’s petition for

review as to his motion to reopen his applications for asylum and withholding.

However, because the BIA abused its discretion by denying Flores’s CAT-

protection claim on an invalid ground, we grant his petition for review as to his

motion to reopen his application for CAT protection.

                                          A

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Flores’s motion to reopen

his application for asylum because his application was untimely and he is therefore

statutorily ineligible for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); id.

§ 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2).

                                          B

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Flores’s motion to reopen

his application for withholding of removal because Flores’s “desire to be free from

                                          3
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members

bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th

Cir. 2010).

                                           C

      The BIA abused its discretion by denying Flores’s motion to reopen his

application for CAT protection because the BIA rested its CAT-protection analysis

on its withholding analysis, which denied the motion solely based on Flores’s

failure to demonstrate a nexus to a protected ground. Compare 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(b)(3)(A) (requiring a petitioner to establish a nexus between the alleged

persecution and a protected ground to obtain withholding of removal), with 8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (requiring a petitioner to “establish that it is more likely

than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed” to obtain CAT protection).

Accordingly, we remand for the BIA to reconsider Flores’s motion to reopen his

application for CAT protection based on whether he has made a prime facie

showing that he would face a likelihood of torture with government acquiescence if

returned to Honduras.

                                           II

      Flores also contends that his former counsel was ineffective because he

failed to submit proof of Flores’s payment of the $500 voluntary-departure bond to

                                           4
the BIA. Flores raised this argument in his motion to reopen, but the BIA failed to

address it in its January 11, 2022 decision. Because the BIA “[is] not free to ignore

arguments raised by a petitioner,” Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th

Cir. 2005), we remand for the BIA to consider Flores’s argument regarding his

eligibility for voluntary departure.

                                           III

      In sum, we deny the petition in part as to Flores’s motion to reopen his

applications for asylum and withholding. We grant the petition in part as to

Flores’s motion to reopen his applications for CAT protection and voluntary

departure, and remand to the BIA (1) to reconsider Flores’s CAT-protection claim

and (2) to consider Flores’s eligibility for voluntary departure in light of his

counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 2) is

granted, and the stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION GRANTED in PART, DENIED in PART.1

      1
          Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

                                            5