Court Opinion

ID: 2964053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:46.714632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:33.693435
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 26, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2241

                                  NARCISA VELASQUEZ,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                           PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin, and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Martin D. Harris, on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Frank W. Hunger,  Assistant Attorney General, and Robert  Kendall,
            _______________                                   ________________
        Jr.,  Assistant Director,  Office  of  Immigration  Litigation,  Civil
        ___
        Division, Department of Justice.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.  Narcisa Velasquez petitions this court for
                    __________

          review  of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA")

          denying her  motion to reopen  her deportation proceedings.   For

          the following reasons, we deny the petition.

               Velasquez  is  a  native  and  citizen  of Ecuador  who  was

          admitted  to this country as  a lawful permanent  resident on May

          12,  1988.  On  April 28, 1994,  the INS issued  an Order to Show

          Cause  charging   Velasquez  with  deportability  based   on  two

          convictions of crimes of moral turpitude, namely, shoplifting and

          welfare  fraud.  See 8 U.S.C.   1251(a)(2)(A)(ii).  A deportation
                           ___

          hearing was held before  an immigration judge ("IJ") on  July 26,

          1994,  at  which  Velasquez   was  represented  by  an  attorney.

          Velasquez admitted  the convictions  but  sought a  discretionary

          waiver  under   212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as

          well as suspension of  deportation and voluntary departure.   The

          IJ found that Velasquez was ineligible for any form of relief and

          ordered her to be deported  to Ecuador.  On May 4,  1995, the BIA

          dismissed Velasquez's appeal from this decision.

               On June 16,  1995, Velasquez  filed a motion  to reopen  the

          deportation proceedings to  apply for a    212(c) waiver, arguing

          that she was now statutorily eligible  for such relief.  The  BIA

          denied the motion to  reopen on November 9, 1995.   This petition

          for review followed.

               Represented by  new counsel, Velasquez argues  for the first

          time that she was deprived  of due process because the IJ  failed

          to advise her of her eligibility for relief under   212(h) of the

                                         -2-

          Act,  8 U.S.C.    1182(h).  See  8 C.F.R.    242.17(a).   We lack
                                      ___

          jurisdiction to reach this  argument.  The exhaustion requirement

          that applies in immigration proceedings, see 8 U.S.C.   1105a(c),
                                                   ___

          bars consideration of arguments  not raised before the BIA.   See
                                                                        ___

          Thomas v.  INS, 976 F.2d 786,  789 (1st Cir. 1992).   Although an
          ______     ___

          exception exists for constitutional challenges to the Immigration

          and  Nationality  Act and  INS  procedures,  a petitioner  cannot

          obtain  review  of  procedural   errors  not  raised  before  the

          administrative  tribunal merely  by framing  them as  due process

          violations.  See Ravindran v. INS, 976 F.2d 754, 762-63 (1st Cir.
                       ___ _________    ___

          1992).    Since  the  BIA could  have  corrected  the  deficiency

          Velasquez  complains of, see id.  at 762 (observing  that the BIA
                                   ___ ___

          has  the power to remand a case  to the IJ to remedy deficiencies

          in procedure), she is barred from raising the issue here.  We add

          that, in any event, our review  is limited to the BIA's denial of

          the motion to  reopen.   Velasquez makes  no meaningful  argument

          that this  denial was in  error.  Indeed,  she concedes  that the

          motion to reopen was frivolous.   

               Velasquez  also argues  for  the  first  time that  she  was

          deprived  of  due  process  by the  incompetency  of  her  former

          counsel.   In particular, she  complains that former  counsel was

          ineffective in failing to  raise and pursue a   212(h)  waiver at

          her deportation hearing, in  raising a non-meritorious ground for

          relief before the BIA, and in raising an equally frivolous ground

          for  relief in her motion to reopen.   We agree with those courts

          that have required petitioners to present ineffective  assistance

                                         -3-

          of  counsel claims to the BIA in  the first instance.  See, e.g.,
                                                                 ___  ____

          Liu  v.  Waters, 55  F.3d 421,  424-26  (9th Cir.  1995); Arango-
          ___      ______                                           _______

          Aradondo  v. INS,  13 F.3d  610, 614  (2d Cir.  1994); Castaneda-
          ________     ___                                       __________

          Suarez v.  INS, 993 F.2d  142, 144-45 (7th  Cir. 1993); Dokic  v.
          ______     ___                                          _____

          INS, 899  F.2d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 1990).  Velasquez may raise her
          ___

          ineffective assistance  of counsel argument  before the BIA  in a

          motion to  reopen.1   See 8  C.F.R.    3.2,  3.8 (procedures  for
                                ___

          motion to reopen or reconsider); see also Matter of Lozado, 19 I.
                                           ________ ________________

          & N.  Dec. 637  (BIA 1988),  aff'd, 857 F.2d  10 (1st  Cir. 1988)
                                       _____

          (establishing  guidelines for  raising ineffective  assistance of

          counsel claims  before the BIA).   Accordingly, the  petition for

          review is denied and dismissed.

               Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                          ___

                              
          ____________________

               1We express no opinion on whether or not such a motion would
          be frivolous.  

                                         -4-