Court Opinion

ID: 9890044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 00:00:34.424827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:24.465681
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60176        Document: 00516927564             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-60176
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               October 11, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Onan Samuel Carrasco-Aguirre,                                                      Clerk

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A213 135 379
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Onan Samuel Carrasco-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
   upholding the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
   and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He also moves to

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60176      Document: 00516927564           Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                     No. 23-60176

   place this case in abeyance until the BIA rules on his pending motion for
   reopening.
          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the decision of the
   immigration judge (IJ) only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Nivelo
   Cardenas v. Garland, 70 F.4th 232, 238 (5th Cir. 2023). Legal questions,
   including due process claims, are reviewed de novo. Okpala v. Whitaker, 908
   F.3d 965, 969 (5th Cir. 2018); Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997).
   The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence
   standard. Okpala, 908 F.3d at 968. We ordinarily may uphold the BIA’s
   decision only on the basis of its stated rationale, but even if the BIA erred at
   some point in its analysis, “affirmance may be warranted where there is no
   realistic possibility” that the BIA’s conclusion would have been different
   absent the error or that the BIA would reach a different conclusion on
   remand. Nivelo Cardenas, 70 F.4th at 238 (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted); see Ibrahim v. Garland, 19 F.4th 819, 826-27 (5th Cir. 2021).
          As an initial matter, the Government objects that some of the issues
   raised by Carrasco-Aguirre here are unexhausted for purposes of 8 U.S.C.
   § 1252(d)(1).   Specifically, Carrasco-Aguirre’s current challenge to the
   propriety of his notice to appear, argument that the IJ failed to fully develop
   the record, and contentions regarding new particular social groups were not
   raised or addressed in the BIA, even though Carrasco-Aguirre was
   represented by counsel then. The Government is correct that those issues
   are unexhausted, and we decline to consider them here. See § 1252(d)(1);
   Medina Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 (5th Cir. 2023).
          Carrasco-Aguirre, who was pro se throughout the proceedings before
   the IJ, also argues that he was denied due process because the IJ violated his
   right to counsel and because the administrative record lacks a transcript of a
   March 5, 2018 hearing relevant to the issue. The lack of representation by

                                          2
Case: 23-60176      Document: 00516927564          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                    No. 23-60176

   counsel may create a due process violation under the Fifth Amendment “if
   the defect impinged upon the fundamental fairness of the hearing” and
   resulted in substantial prejudice. Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 598 (5th
   Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Carrasco-Aguirre disputes whether, at the March 5, 2018 hearing, the
   IJ advised him of his right to counsel and gave him a list of pro bono legal
   service providers. Irrespective of whether that occurred at the March 5th
   hearing, the transcribed hearings in the record show that the IJ repeatedly
   advised Carrasco-Aguirre during subsequent hearings to seek an attorney or
   help from pro bono legal service providers. Given the IJ’s continuances of
   the case, Carrasco-Aguirre had over a year to obtain counsel before his merits
   hearing.   When the merits hearing did occur, the IJ again questioned
   Carrasco-Aguirre about whether he had counsel and then confirmed that he
   was ready to proceed on his application.
          Additionally, Carrasco-Aguirre’s statements at his credible fear
   interview and an April 11, 2018 hearing indicate that he received a list of pro
   bono legal service providers. He was asked questions in those instances that
   specifically referred to him having received such a list, and his responses
   reflect that he had received the list. The BIA did not err in determining that
   there was no due process violation by the IJ with regard to violation of the
   right to counsel. See Ogbemudia, 988 F.2d at 599; Prichard-Ciriza v. INS, 978
   F.2d 219, 222 (5th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, Carrasco-Aguirre has failed to
   specify how having counsel would have affected the outcome of his
   application for relief and thus has not demonstrated substantial prejudice
   relating to the lack of counsel. See Okpala, 908 F.3d at 971 (recognizing that
   showing substantial prejudice requires alien to make a prima facie showing
   that the alleged due process violation affected the outcome of the
   proceedings).

                                          3
Case: 23-60176     Document: 00516927564           Page: 4   Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                    No. 23-60176

          A showing of substantial prejudice is also required for a due process
   claim based on a missing hearing transcript. Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235,
   241 (5th Cir. 2021). As discussed above, even disregarding the March 5, 2018
   hearing, the administrative record affirmatively shows that there was no
   violation of Carrasco-Aguirre’s right to counsel. Carrasco-Aguirre has not
   shown here that the absence of a transcript of the March 5, 2018 hearing has
   affected the outcome of his right-to-counsel claim. See id.
          Lastly, the BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding because it
   was permitted to evaluate whether Carrasco-Aguirre’s newly raised claim
   concerning the denial of counsel established an adequate basis for the remand
   he requested. See Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1063 (5th Cir.
   2020). In any event, denial of the petition of review is warranted here
   because there is no realistic possibility that the BIA would have reached a
   different conclusion absent any impermissible factfinding.        See Nivelo
   Cardenas, 70 F.4th at 244.
          Carrasco-Aguirre’s petition for review and motion for abeyance are
   DENIED.

                                         4