Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petition for review submitted by a Chinese citizen challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order, which had dismissed his appeal against the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility. The court held jurisdiction over this case under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, reviewing both eligibility determinations and due process challenges. The petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming it led him to incorrectly seek a waiver under § 212(c) instead of pursuing a withholding of removal. However, the petitioner failed to establish prima facie eligibility for withholding, leading the BIA to determine there was no resultant prejudice. Additionally, the petitioner's claim of a due process violation by the BIA, due to the absence of a remand to the IJ, was dismissed as meritless. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. The decision is non-precedential, adhering to the guidelines set forth by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Due Process in Immigration Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner's claim that the BIA violated due process rights by not remanding the case was found to lack merit.
Reasoning: Additionally, Li's claim that the BIA violated his due process rights by not remanding his case to the IJ was found to be without merit.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel led to pursuing an incorrect waiver application, impacting the legal strategies available.
Reasoning: Instead, he argued that ineffective assistance of counsel led him to pursue a § 212(c) waiver instead of a claim for withholding of removal.
Judicial Review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercises jurisdiction to review non-discretionary eligibility determinations and due process challenges.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews non-discretionary eligibility determinations and due process challenges de novo.
Non-Precedential Nature of Rulingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not intended for publication or as precedent, except as provided by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The petition for review is thus denied, and this decision is not intended for publication or as precedent, except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Prima Facie Eligibility for Withholding of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal, which is necessary to establish prejudice from ineffective assistance claims.
Reasoning: However, Li failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for withholding, which led the BIA to conclude there was no established prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance.