Garcia-Maldonado v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWIN GIOVANN GARCIA- No. 23-246 MALDONADO, Agency No. A206-093-995 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2024** Pasadena, California Before: COLLINS, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Edwin Giovann Garcia-Maldonado petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his case due to ineffective assistance from his prior counsel. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion, Reyes-Corado v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 2023), we deny the petition. For ineffective assistance of counsel to justify reopening a case, a petitioner must show “‘substantial prejudice,’ meaning that counsel’s performance was so inadequate that ‘the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.’” Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 801 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Grigoryan v. Barr, 959 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2020)). The BIA found that Garcia-Maldonado failed to show prejudice because he provided no explanation as to how his prior counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness led to the agency’s conclusion that there was no connection between Garcia-Maldonado’s feared harm and any protected characteristic. Garcia-Maldonado does not challenge this finding on appeal. And, because the agency denied Garcia- Maldonado’s claims for relief on grounds wholly independent of the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding, merely showing prejudice as to that finding alone is insufficient to establish that counsel’s performance may have affected “the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. (quoting Grigoryan, 959 F.3d at 1240). Accordingly, Garcia-Maldonado has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion. See id. at 804. DENIED. 2 23-246