Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

12 Citing cases

  1. Martinez-Rios v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 22-13466 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023)

    We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019). Our review "is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or capricious."

  2. Priva v. U.S. Attorney General

    34 F.4th 946 (11th Cir. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    Ibrahim v. U.S. INS , 821 F.2d 1547, 1550 (11th Cir. 1987) ; see also, e.g. , Indrawati v. U.S. Att'y Gen. , 779 F.3d 1284, 1299 (11th Cir. 2015) ; Lapaix v. U.S. Att'y Gen. , 605 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010) ; De Sandoval v. U.S. Att'y Gen. , 440 F.3d 1276, 1285 (11th Cir. 2006) ; Garcia v. Att'y Gen. of U.S. , 329 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2003) ; Mullen-Cofee v. INS , 976 F.2d 1375, 1380 (11th Cir. 1992). For example, in Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen. , 913 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir. 2019), we held that while " 8 U.S.C. § 1362 provides that aliens have the right to retain private counsel in their removal proceedings ... [and] the right to effective assistance of counsel," the alien must also show prejudice. Id. at 1040 ; see also Mejia Rodriguez v. Reno , 178 F.3d 1139, 1148 (11th Cir. 1999). Additionally, in Frech v. U.S. Att'y Gen. , 491 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007), we held that "[w]hile deprivation of the right to counsel ... in a removal proceeding would, under certain circumstances, constitute a due process violation, [the petitioner had] not shown that he was substantially prejudiced by any due process violation in [the] case ."

  3. Leonard v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 20-12231 (11th Cir. Apr. 27, 2021)

    Where we have jurisdiction, we review only the decision of the Board except to the extent the Board expressly adopts the immigration judge's decision. Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019). Insofar as the Board adopts the immigration judge's reasoning, we review the immigration judge's decision too.

  4. Rojas v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 22-11896 (11th Cir. Feb. 22, 2024)

    "We review only the BIA's decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ's opinion." Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted).

  5. Flores v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    64 F.4th 1208 (11th Cir. 2023)   Cited 13 times

    The Dakane Court then cited with approval Xu Yong Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127, 132 (3d Cir. 2001), in which the Third Circuit concluded that an excludable alien facing exclusion enjoys a statutory right under § 1362 to assistance of counsel at his expense and this is necessarily a right to effective assistance of that counsel. Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1273 n.6; see also Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Gbaya for the principle that "8 U.S.C. § 1362 provides that aliens have the right to retain private counsel in their removal proceedings" and thus "the right to effective assistance of counsel" so retained). Our point is that Dakane does not undermine Mejia Rodriguez's holding that aliens do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in discretionary relief from removal and do not have a constitutional due process right to effective assistance of counsel in connection with discretionary applications.

  6. Fajardo-Rebollar v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 21-10390 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023)

    We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ's decision. See Flores-Pana-meno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019). And we do not reach issues not considered by the BIA.

  7. Yue Zhu Qiu v. Attorney Gen.

    No. 22-10216 (11th Cir. Feb. 1, 2023)

    A noncitizen must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019). The decision

  8. Perez-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 18-14307 (11th Cir. Jan. 4, 2022)

    We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for an abuse of discretion. Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019).

  9. Eloi v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 19-14785 (11th Cir. Jul. 21, 2021)

    Our review is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or capricious." Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted); Jiang v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (same). "The moving party bears a heavy burden, as motions to reopen are disfavored, especially in removal proceedings.

  10. Urrego v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 20-13030 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2021)

    We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ's decision. Flores-Panameno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019). The BIA is not required to discuss every piece of evidence presented in the IJ's order, but it is required to consider all the evidence submitted.