Vanegas-Morales v. Garland ( 2022 )

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, 989 F.3d 190, 196
(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, 426 F.3d 540, 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, 480 F.3d 104, 123 (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