20-1689 Vanegas-Morales v. Garland BIA Laforest, IJ A096 182 683 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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of July, two thousand twenty-two.

PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

GLORIA LETICIA VANEGAS-MORALES, Petitioner,

v. 20-1689 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., Hempstead, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Acting Assistant Director; Christin M. Whitacre, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

is DENIED.

Petitioner Gloria Leticia Vanegas-Morales, a native and

citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a May 14, 2020,

decision of the BIA, which dismissed her appeal of a March

13, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re

Gloria Leticia Vanegas-Morales, No. A096 182 683 (B.I.A. May

14, 2020), aff’g No. A096 182 683 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar.

13, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts and procedural history.

We have reviewed the BIA’s decision as the final agency

decision. See Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson,

(2d Cir. 2021). Before the BIA, Vanegas-Morales argued that

her attorney provided ineffective assistance and that the IJ

should have intervened when counsel conceded that he was not

prepared for the Government to oppose the motion to terminate

the proceedings. She did not otherwise challenge the IJ’s 2 decision, and the BIA addressed only these ineffective

assistance arguments. We deny the petition because Vanegas-

Morales has abandoned her ineffective assistance claims by

failing to raise them in her brief to this Court. See Yueqing

Zhang v. Gonzales,

, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir.

2005) (issues not raised in briefs are abandoned). Moreover,

because she raised only the ineffective assistance claims

before the BIA, the arguments she raises in her brief are

unexhausted and not subject to judicial review. See Lin

Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir.

2007) (“[U]sually . . . issues not raised to the BIA will not

be examined by the reviewing court.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

DENIED. All other pending motions and applications are

DENIED and stays VACATED.

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

3