Ali v. Gonzales
Filing
920061107
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 7, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-60887 Summary Calendar AMIR ALI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 304 485 -------------------Before Jolly, Dennis, and Clement, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Amir Ali petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Ali contends that the BIA abused its discretion in
denying his motion to reopen, which raised the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request voluntary departure on his behalf. Ali has abandoned the remaining ineffective-assistance
claims raised in his motion to reopen by failing to argue them in his petition for review. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*
No. 05-60887 -2224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). We review the denial of a motion to reopen under "a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). challenges is de novo. Zhao v. Gonzales,
Our review of constitutional
Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d Likewise, we review de novo the BIA's
547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006). legal conclusions. Cir. 2006).
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th
"`[T]he failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in nature does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest.'" Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th A request for voluntary Eyoum v. INS,
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
departure is a request for discretionary relief. 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997).
Even if Ali had a
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during the immigration proceedings, he had no due process right to effective assistance of counsel in pursuit of discretionary relief. Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan, 461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir.
2006); Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003). Ali's argument that his case is distinguishable from
Assaad because he "was unable to even request the relief" is unavailing. Cf. Gutierrez-Morales, 461 F.3d at 609-10 (holding
that alien has no due process right to effective assistance of counsel in seeking to present waiver application--purely
No. 05-60887 -3discretionary relief--to the Immigration Judge or the BIA on its merits). The petition for review is DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?