Puente Perez v. Garland, No. 20-60625 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-60625 Document: 00516316764 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 12, 2022 No. 20-60625 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Oscar Guadalupe Puente Perez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A204 699 554 Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Oscar Guadalupe Puente Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us for a review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. He argues that the Board should have construed his appeal as a motion to remand based on the ineffective assistance of his first attorney in his * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60625 Document: 00516316764 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2022 No. 20-60625 immigration proceeding, and that we should grant his petition for review based in part on the ineffective assistance of that same attorney. He also attacks the Texas conviction that was the basis for his removal. As to these claims, the petition is dismissed. We find no evidence that a motion for reconsideration was submitted and no reason for the Board to have construed the brief that was submitted as a motion to remand. That issue is unexhausted. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 766 (5th Cir. 2020). We cannot consider the ineffective assistance argument apart from the motion-to-remand argument because it was not argued before the Board and so is unexhausted. Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 644 (5th Cir. 2010). As to these claims, the petition is dismissed. The collateral attacks on the Texas conviction are not properly before us in this context and so the petition as to those claims is denied. See Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 528 (5th Cir. 2009). DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
