Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reopen her removal proceedings based on an allegation of ineffective assistance of a non-attorney accredited representative; petitioner failed to show how the outcome would have been different but for the ineffective representation; petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated as there is no right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2157 ___________________________ Vilma Chacon-Nunez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of the United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: January 19, 2021 Filed: January 22, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Robert M. Wilkinson has been appointed to serve as Acting Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Vilma Chacon-Nunez, a citizen and native of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings based on the alleged ineffective assistance of her non-attorney accredited representative. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of the agency’s broad discretion, recognizing that motions to reopen are viewed with disfavor. See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 240-52 (2010); Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 861-62 (8th Cir. 2006). After careful review, we conclude the administrative record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chacon-Nunez failed to submit new evidence or otherwise show that the outcome of her immigration case might have been different but for the alleged ineffective assistance. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 2011); Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 970, 972-73 (8th Cir. 2004). Chacon-Nunez argues her Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated because she was not represented by counsel but acknowledges we have held that there is no Fifth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings. See Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853, 861 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. ______________________________ -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.
