Miguel Vasquez Macias v. Jefferson Sessions III
681 F. App'x 265
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vasquez, a Venezuelan national, entered the U.S. at Fort Lauderdale on July 4, 2012, with a B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant visa but told DHS officials he feared returning to Venezuela. DHS referred him to Immigration Court, charging inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i).
- Vasquez applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ found he intended to immigrate and thus was inadmissible for lacking a valid immigrant visa; the IJ denied his relief requests on January 16, 2014.
- The Immigration Board affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. Vasquez appealed only those denials, not the IJ’s inadmissibility finding.
- Vasquez moved to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the IJ’s inadmissibility finding; the Board denied the motion, concluding no deficient performance or prejudice.
- Vasquez petitioned the Fourth Circuit to review (1) the Board’s affirmation of the IJ’s denials and (2) denial of his motion to reopen for ineffective assistance. The Fourth Circuit denied both petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred in affirming the IJ’s inadmissibility finding that Vasquez intended to immigrate without a valid immigrant visa | Vasquez argues the inadmissibility finding was wrong and he had a valid visa at entry | DHS/Board argue Vasquez’s own statements showed intent to immigrate, making his B-1/B-2 visa inapplicable | Held: No error — substantial evidence supports the IJ/Board finding of intent to immigrate and inadmissibility |
| Whether the Board abused its discretion by denying Vasquez’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel | Vasquez contends counsel was ineffective for not appealing the inadmissibility finding | Board argues Vasquez cannot show prejudice because his B-1/B-2 status was invalidated by his statements and he had already overstayed by the time of appeal | Held: No abuse of discretion — Vasquez failed to show counsel’s alleged error caused prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Tang v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2016) (alien bears burden to prove entitlement to asylum or related relief)
- Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2014) (appellate review accepts agency factual findings unless no reasonable adjudicator could reach same conclusion)
- Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2013) (substantial evidence standard for CAT relief review)
- Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741 (4th Cir. 2006) (motions to reopen are disfavored and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Surganova v. Holder, 612 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2010) (ineffective assistance claims require showing of prejudice)
- Adeaga v. Holder, [citation="548 F. App'x 68"] (4th Cir. 2013) (same: prejudice required for ineffective-assistance claims)