Court Opinion

ID: 9909851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:00:53.469947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:16.063023
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 21-9574    Document: 010110968574        Date Filed: 12/14/2023     Page: 1

                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         December 14, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  PABLO MACKLEEN-GRIJALVA,

        Petitioner,

  v.                                                           No. 21-9574
                                                           (Petition for Review)
  MERRICK B. GARLAND,
  United States Attorney General,

        Respondent.
                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Pablo Mackleen-Grijalva petitions for review of a Board of Immigration

 Appeals (Board) order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings based

 on ineffective assistance of counsel. We deny the petition because he does not

 challenge one of the alternative grounds relied on by the Board to deny his motion to

 reopen.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-9574    Document: 010110968574       Date Filed: 12/14/2023       Page: 2

                                I.     BACKGROUND

       Mr. Mackleen is a native and citizen of Mexico. In 2020 an immigration judge

 (IJ) found Mr. Mackleen removable, denied his application for cancellation of

 removal, and granted his request for voluntary departure. The IJ found Mr. Mackleen

 statutorily ineligible for cancellation because he could not establish good moral

 character throughout the requisite ten-year period. Alternatively, the IJ denied

 cancellation of removal on the ground that Mr. Mackleen failed to meet his burden to

 establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives.

       With new counsel, Mr. Mackleen unsuccessfully appealed to the Board.1 He

 then filed with the Board the motion to reopen and remand at issue here. He

 alleged former counsel was ineffective for failing to discover that he was eligible

 for special-rule cancellation of removal for abused spouses of United States

 citizens under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), as codified at

 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I), and for adjustment of status as a beneficiary of a

 concurrently filed I-360 VAWA self-petition for a visa as an abused spouse.2 In

 support of his motion Mr. Mackleen submitted documents concerning former counsel

 and his prior common-law marriage, and declarations from himself, his sister, and his

 current partner.

       1
         Mr. Mackleen filed a petition for review in this court but later voluntarily
 dismissed it.
       2
         An alien may seek relief under the VAWA either by requesting cancellation-
 of-removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(2)(A), or by filing a visa petition
 under 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.1(a)(3), 204.2(c).
                                            2
Appellate Case: 21-9574    Document: 010110968574        Date Filed: 12/14/2023     Page: 3

       The Board concluded that reopening was not warranted and denied the motion.

 Mr. Mackleen then filed his petition for review. On his unopposed motion, we

 abated the matter while he pursued the VAWA self-petition with the United States

 Citizenship and Immigration Service. The USCIS denied the petition because he was

 unable to demonstrate good moral character. We then lifted the abatement.

                                  II.    DISCUSSION

       A motion to reopen gives an alien the opportunity to present new

 evidence demonstrating that he is eligible for relief from removal. See 8 U.S.C.

 § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The supporting evidence must have been

 undiscoverable and unavailable at the time of the former hearing, unless, although

 available, it was not submitted “because of counsel’s ineffectiveness.” Mena-Flores

 v. Holder, 776 F.3d 1152, 1168 (10th Cir. 2015). The new evidence must

 “demonstrate that if proceedings before the IJ were reopened,. . . the new evidence

 offered would likely change the result in the case.” Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d

 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2013) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

       The Board denied the motion to reopen for two reasons. First, it concluded

 that Mr. Mackleen’s evidence was not new and previously undiscoverable. Second,

 the Board found that he failed to demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for either

 special-rule cancellation of removal or adjustment of status based on his I-360

 VAWA self-petition, so he could not show he was prejudiced by former counsel’s

 failure to pursue that relief. Each of the Board’s reasons for denying reopening was

 independently dispositive. See Mickeviciute v. INS, 327 F.3d 1159, at 1162 (10th

                                            3
Appellate Case: 21-9574     Document: 010110968574        Date Filed: 12/14/2023       Page: 4

 Cir. 2003) (recognizing that the movant’s failure to establish his eligibility for the

 substantive underlying relief and his failure to introduce previously unavailable

 evidence are “independent grounds” for denial of a motion to reopen). The Board

 also declined to exercise its discretion to reopen proceedings sua sponte, noting that

 the motion did not demonstrate an “exceptional situation,” as he failed to show

 prejudice resulting from his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. R., vol. 1 at 5.

       Mr. Mackleen seeks review of the Board’s determination that he failed to

 establish his prima facie eligibility for VAWA relief. But he does not seek review of

 either the Board’s finding that he failed to present new and previously unavailable

 evidence or its denial of sua sponte reopening. Accordingly, he has waived any

 challenge he might have had to those rulings. See Krastev v. INS, 292 F.3d 1268,

 1280 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Issues not raised on appeal are deemed to be waived.”). His

 failure to challenge the Board’s denial of reopening on the ground that he did not

 present previously unavailable evidence also renders it unnecessary to consider his

 challenge to its eligibility determination, and requires denial of his petition for

 review. See Lebahn v. Nat’l Farmers Union Unif. Pension Plan, 828 F.3d 1180,

 1188 (10th Cir. 2016) (when a tribunal rejects a claim on multiple independent

 grounds, the petitioner must challenge each ground); Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d

 1388, 1390 (10th Cir. 1994) (the failure to challenge a determination that is “by

 itself, a sufficient basis for” denying relief forecloses success on appeal).

                                             4
Appellate Case: 21-9574   Document: 010110968574       Date Filed: 12/14/2023   Page: 5

                               III.      CONCLUSION

       We deny the petition for review. We grant Mr. Mackleen’s motion to proceed

 without prepayment of fees and costs.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Harris L Hartz
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           5