Misael Garcis v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15850
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A094-056-420
MISAEL GARCIA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 23, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Misael Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review
of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen
Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 2 of 6
removal proceedings. Garcia sought temporary protected status before the agency,
but the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application
based upon the fact that Garcia had two Florida state convictions, one for petit
theft and one for trespass on land, both of which are misdemeanors. In his motion
to reopen removal proceedings, Garcia conceded that the BIA properly denied
temporary protected status based upon his convictions. Nonetheless, he presented
evidence that, although he sought to vacate both of his convictions, his attorneys
(“post-conviction counsel”) rendered ineffective assistance by failing to properly
file post-conviction motions, thereby justifying reopening.
Garcia now argues that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion
to reopen removal proceedings by: (1) requiring him to show that new evidence
would likely change the result of his case instead of analyzing whether
post-conviction counsel’s performance was so inadequate that the outcome may
have been affected; (2) requiring him to produce evidence that was unavailable,
and could not have been discovered or presented at his former hearing;
(3) concluding that his evidence was immaterial because his pursuit of
post-conviction relief did not alter its previous finding that his convictions
remained valid for immigration purposes, and that he remained ineligible for
temporary protected status regardless of whether post-conviction counsel properly
2
Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 3 of 6
filed post-conviction motions; and (4) failing to adequately consider his evidence
and claims, and explain its decision.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of
discretion. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009).
Review is limited to determining “whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an
arbitrary or capricious manner.” Id. A motion to reopen must state new facts that
will be proven at a hearing, and will not be granted unless the evidence sought to
be offered is material and was unavailable and could not have been discovered or
presented at the former hearing. INA § 240(c)(7)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Verano-Velasco v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 456 F.3d 1372, 1376
(11th Cir. 2006). Evidence is “new” where it was unavailable at the time of the
alien’s removal hearing. See Verano-Velasco, 456 F.3d at 1377. Likewise,
evidence is “material” if it would likely change the result in the case upon
reopening. See Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256-57 (11th Cir. 2009).
Thus, an alien moving to reopen his removal proceedings bears a “heavy burden,”
and must present evidence that satisfies the BIA that the new evidence offered
would likely change the result of the case. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804,
813 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing In re Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)).
A failure to produce material and previously unavailable evidence justifies the
3
Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 4 of 6
denial of a motion to reopen. See Li v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371, 1374-75
(11th Cir. 2007).
Aliens have a Fifth Amendment due process right to effective assistance of
counsel in the context of a removal hearing, and a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel may form the basis of a motion to reopen. See Dakane v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1273-74 (11th Cir. 2005). In order to establish ineffective
assistance of counsel, the alien must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was
deficient to the point that it impinged upon the fundamental fairness of the hearing
so that the alien was unable to reasonably present his case. Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). Additionally, the alien must demonstrate that counsel’s
performance prejudiced him, which requires a showing that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the
proceedings would have been different. See id. at 1274. Nonetheless, a state court
is the proper forum for a collateral attack upon a state conviction. See Mohammed
v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that where the petitioner
alleged an error with respect to a state court conviction the proper remedy was a
collateral attack upon that conviction in the state court).
The Attorney General may grant temporary protected status to aliens who
are nationals of designated foreign states and meet other requirements. INA
4
Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 5 of 6
§ 244A(a)(1), (b), (c), 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(a)(1), (b), (c); 8 C.F.R. § 1244.2. An
alien is ineligible for temporary protected status, however, if he has been
convicted of two or more misdemeanors that were committed in the United States.
INA § 244A(c)(2)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1244.4(a). The
Attorney General must withdraw temporary protected status that was granted to an
alien if the alien is, in fact, ineligible for temporary protected status. INA
§ 244A(c)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(3)(A).
The BIA must consider all of the evidence introduced by the movant, but
does not have to specifically address each claim or piece of evidence where it
gives reasoned consideration to the motion and makes adequate findings. See Tan
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006). Nonetheless, the BIA
must announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable us “to perceive that it has
heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude from the record that the BIA correctly required Garcia to show
that new evidence would likely change the result of his case and produce evidence
that was unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented at his
former hearing. Because Garcia had two misdemeanor convictions and could not
collaterally attack them in the immigration proceedings, his evidence that
post-conviction counsel rendered ineffective assistance was immaterial, as it did
5
Case: 11-15850 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 6 of 6
not demonstrate that he was eligible for temporary protected status. Finally, the
BIA considered Garcia’s evidence, gave his claims reasoned consideration, and
adequately explained its decision. Thus, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse
its discretion when it denied Garcia’s motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
6