19-1841 Martinez Soriano v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A073 548 354

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 20th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALBERTO MARTINEZ SORIANO, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-1841 18 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Alberto Martinez Soriano, pro se, 26 Newburgh, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 30 Assistant Director; Elizabeth Chapman, 31 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 Litigation, United States Department 33 of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is

4 DENIED.

5 Petitioner Alberto Martinez Soriano, a native and citizen of

6 Mexico, seeks review of a May 23, 2019 decision of the BIA,

7 dismissing as untimely his appeal of an October 26, 2018 order of

8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting his application for

9 cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. In re Alberto

10 Martinez Soriano, No. A073 548 354 (B.I.A. May 23, 2019), aff’g

11 No. A073 548 354 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 26, 2018). We assume the

12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

13 history.

14 Under the circumstances, we review only the BIA’s decision

15 dismissing as untimely Martinez Soriano’s appeal of the IJ’s

16 decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir.

17 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established.

18 See Khan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2007)

19 (reviewing dismissal of appeal as untimely for abuse of

20 discretion); Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

,

21 288–90 (2d Cir. 2007) (reviewing factual findings for substantial

22 evidence and questions of law de novo); Nwozuzu v. Holder, 726

2

, 326–27 (2d Cir. 2013) (reviewing agency statutory

2 interpretation under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def.

3 Council, Inc.,

, 842–44 (1984)).

4 It is undisputed that Martinez Soriano’s February 2019 appeal

5 to the BIA was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days

6 after the IJ’s October 2018 order of removal. See 8 C.F.R.

7 § 1003.38(b) (“The Notice of Appeal . . . shall be filed directly

8 with the Board . . . within 30 calendar days after

9 the . . . mailing of an Immigration Judge’s written decision.”);

10 see also Attipoe v. Barr,

(2d Cir. 2019). “[W]hile

11 under normal circumstances the BIA cannot hear late-filed

12 appeals,” Zhong Guang Sun v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

,

13 108 (2d Cir. 2005), it may equitably toll the filing period based

14 on ineffective assistance of counsel, see Attipoe, 945 F.3d at 82–

15 83. The BIA did not err in declining to excuse the untimely filing

16 based on Martinez Soriano’s ineffective assistance of counsel

17 claim.

18 To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, an alien must

19 substantially comply with the procedures laid out in Matter of

20 Lozada,

(B.I.A. 1988), which requires (1) an

21 affidavit detailing what actions former counsel agreed to take,

22 (2) proof that counsel was notified of the allegations and allowed

3 1 to respond, and (3) a statement regarding whether a complaint was

2 filed with a disciplinary authority. See

; see also

3 Jian Yun Zheng v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,

, 46–47 (2d

4 Cir. 2005). Martinez Soriano complied with the first requirement

5 by submitting an affidavit laying out his agreement with counsel

6 as to at least one basis for his claim (counsel’s failure to oppose

7 pretermission) and the third requirement by submitting complaints

8 he filed, but he failed to comply with the second requirement by

9 showing that he informed counsel of the allegations and provided

10 an opportunity for response. The second requirement protects

11 against “the potential for abuse . . . apparent where no mechanism

12 exists for allowing former counsel, whose integrity or competence

13 is being impugned, to present his version of events if he so

14 chooses, thereby discouraging baseless allegations.” Lozada, 19

15 I&N Dec. at 639. Although we do not require “slavish adherence

16 to the requirements,” we have excused them only where a “claim of

17 ineffective assistance [was] clear on the face of the record,”

18 such as when counsel had been disbarred for similar claims of

19 ineffectiveness or admitted fault. Yi Long Yang v. Gonzales, 478

, 142–43 (2d Cir. 2007).

21 Because Martinez Soriano failed to comply with the Lozada

22 requirements, he forfeited his ineffective assistance of counsel

4 1 claim, see Jian Yun Zheng,

, and the BIA did not err

2 in declining to excuse the untimely filing of his appeal, see Khan,

3 494 F.3d at 259. Accordingly, we do not reach the BIA’s

4 alternative dispositive determination that Martinez Soriano failed

5 to establish prejudice. See INS v. Bagamasbad,

, 25

6 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to

7 make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to

8 the results they reach.”); Rabiu v. INS,

(2d Cir.

9 1994) (requiring showing of prejudice to state ineffective

10 assistance claim).

11 There is no merit to Martinez Soriano’s argument that the BIA

12 should have found his notice to appear defective under Pereira v.

13 Sessions,

(2018), because the notice did not

14 include a hearing date or time. In Pereira, the Supreme Court held

15 that the Immigration and Nationality Act unambiguously requires a

16 notice to appear to include a hearing time and place to trigger

17 the “stop-time rule,”

, which cuts off an

18 alien’s accrual of physical presence or residence for the purposes

19 of qualifying for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a),

20 (b), (d)(1). Although Martinez Soriano applied for cancellation,

21 his length of residence and the application of the stop-time rule

22 were not at issue and he was denied relief on alternative grounds.

5 1 Accordingly, Pereira is not relevant to his case. Any argument

2 that his notice to appear did not vest jurisdiction in the

3 Immigration Court because it omitted a hearing date and time is

4 foreclosed by Banegas Gomez v. Barr,

(2d Cir. 2019).

5

at 111–12.

6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

7 FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 9 Clerk of Court

6