Court Opinion

ID: 9965285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 00:00:48.077151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:51.112667
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60416           Document: 42-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/01/2024

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

                                                                                  FILED
                                   No. 23-60416                               May 1, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________
                                                                                 Clerk
Ruth Saenz,

                                                                               Petitioner,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                            Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A026 802 336
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Ruth Saenz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions our court for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying her motion to
reopen her immigration proceedings.
      Saenz’ notice to appear did not include a date or time for her initial
hearing. In her motion to reopen, she contends the defective notice deprived

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60416        Document: 42-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/01/2024

the immigration court of jurisdiction under Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S.
155 (2021) and Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018). She also maintains
her counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
       Review of the BIA’s denying a motion to reopen is “under a highly
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Ovalles v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1120,
1123 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). A motion to reopen may be denied if
the movant does not make a prima-facie showing of eligibility for the relief
sought. E.g., Parada-Orellana v. Garland, 21 F.4th 887, 893 (5th Cir. 2022).
To raise a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), Saenz
must show her counsel’s substandard performance prejudiced her. See, e.g.,
Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2018) (outlining ineffective-
assistance standard). Prejudice is established by showing “there was a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result
of the proceeding would have been different”. Id. (citation omitted).
       As Saenz acknowledges, her contention that the defective notice failed
to confer jurisdiction on the immigration court is foreclosed by precedent.
E.g., Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 480 (5th Cir. 2022)
(explaining precedent forecloses contention that immigration judge did not
acquire jurisdiction on account of defective notice), overruled on other grounds
by Wilkinson v. Garland, 144 S. Ct. 780, 787–88, 787 n.2 (2024); Maniar v.
Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021) (same). She raises the issue
to preserve it for possible further review. And, because the above contention
is meritless, the BIA correctly concluded Saenz could not establish prejudice
on her IAC claim.
       DENIED.