Case: 21-60371 Document: 00516395862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 15, 2022 No. 21-60371 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Santiago Zamora Gonzalez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A077 805 269 Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Santiago Zamora Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) finding him removable, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), and denying cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60371 Document: 00516395862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 No. 21-60371 Gonzalez was convicted in 2016 and 2019 of discharging a firearm in a municipality with a certain population size, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 42.12. A notice to appear (NTA) charged him with removability because of those two convictions. Gonzalez admitted the allegations in the NTA, conceded removability, and applied for cancellation of removal. Based on his admissions and concession, the IJ found Gonzalez removable, denied cancellation of removal, and ordered him removed. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517– 18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Although Gonzalez asserts that the BIA erred in binding him to his concession of removability, and that the IJ failed to consider evidence as to whether his prior convictions qualified as removable offenses under § 1227(a)(2)(C) despite his concession, he does not challenge these BIA conclusions: his counsel informed him fully regarding the proceedings and pleadings he was filing; and there was no evidence he did not consent to the filings. Nor does Gonzalez raise why the BIA should have judged the reasonableness of counsel’s decisions by out-of-circuit precedent in a manner out of step with the BIA’s historical practice. See Matter of Anselmo, 20 I. & N. Dec. 25, 31–32 (B.I.A. 1989) (noting the BIA “historically follow[s] a [federal appeals] court’s precedent in cases arising in that circuit”). Most importantly, Gonzalez offers no challenge to the BIA’s conclusion that he 2 Case: 21-60371 Document: 00516395862 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 No. 21-60371 failed to adduce the evidence required by Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), to support any ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claim. Accordingly, Gonzalez fails to show that the evidence compels the requisite …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals