Martinez Molina v. Holder
763 F.3d 1259
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Mr. Martinez Molina and Ms. Ramirez Rivera are Mexican citizens with final removal orders.
- They filed a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of prior counsel and submitted 1998 residence evidence.
- The first attorney submitted 1998 evidence; a second attorney submitted 1999–2010 evidence but not 1998 evidence.
- The Immigration Judge denied cancellation of removal in part due to testimony discrepancies and lack of October 1998 evidence.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion to reopen, deeming new evidence substantially similar to prior record.
- The court remanded for Martinez and affirmed Ramirez; exhaustion issues determined petitioners failed to exhaust one theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion and Board review scope | Martinez: failure to exhaust entire-record claim; Ramirez: exhaustion proper for all issues. | Board and court limited review to exhausted claims; some arguments not exhausted. | Martinez: remanded for exhaust-related clarification; Ramirez: affirmed. |
| Effect of ineffective representation on outcome | Ineffectiveness prejudiced the outcome for Martinez and Ramirez. | Board acted within discretion; no prejudice shown for Ramirez; Martinez requires remand. | Martinez: prejudice shown, remand; Ramirez: no prejudice established. |
| Whether 1998 evidence differed from 1997-1998 record | 1998 documents fill gaps not considered by the IJ. | Evidence was same or substantially similar to what the IJ reviewed. | Martinez: evidence did differ and should be reconsidered on remand; Ramirez: no abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tang v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2003) (due-process right to effective representation; standard for prejudice)
- Aguirre-Tello v. United States, 353 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2004) (prejudice required for fundamentally unfair proceeding)
- Ribas v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 922 (10th Cir. 2008) (reasonable likelihood standard for prejudice in immigration appeals)
- Akinwunmi v. INS, 194 F.3d 1340 (10th Cir. 1999) (exhaustion prerequisite for appellate review in immigration cases)
- Galvez Pineda v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Board rulings)
- Onwuamaegbu v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 405 (1st Cir. 2006) (remand when Board decision may be affected by IJ error)
- Lam v. Holder, 698 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2012) (remand when ambiguity in IJ rationale)
- Batalova v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2004) (presumption of thorough review by the BIA)