AHUTA, ALFRED AJANGA

A200-229-217
827 FORREST AVENUE
GADSDEN, AL 35901
Name: AHUTA, ALFRED AJANGA
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Imigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5/07 leeb11rg Pike, S11ite 2000
Fall Ch11rch, Vrginia 22041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel DAL
125 E. John Carpenter Fw, Ste. 500
Iring, TX 75062-2324
A 200-229-217
Date of this notice: 9/5/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Kendall-Clark, Molly
Sincerely,
DO c t
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
lucasd
Userteam: Docket
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Alfred Ajanga Ahuta, A200 229 217 (BIA Sept. 5, 2013)
W
f .
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Imigation Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: A200 229 217 - Haskell, T
ln re: ALFREDAJANGAAHUTA
I REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
MOTION
ON BEHALF OF RSPONDENT: Pro se
ON BEHALF OF DHS:
APPLICATION: Reopening
Paul Hunker
Chief Counsel
Decision of the Board oflmigation Appeals
Date:
SEP 5
20i3
On July 5, 2013, the respondent fled a motion to reopen proceedings i which the Board
dismissed his appeal on January 23, 2013. The Board granted his associated request fr a sty of
removal on July 16, 2013. The motion will be denied.
The respondent's motion is untimely as it was fled more tha 90 days afer te Boad's
decision. Secton 240(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Immigation and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2). However, he contends that equitable tolling is
appropriate as frer counsel provided him with inefective assistance. Lara v. Trominsk,
216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000); Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Wit his
motion he has included an afdavit, and evidence that he infred frer counsel of the
allegations against him and fled a state bar complaint in this regard (Motion, Tabs J, K).
To demonstrate inefective assistance of counsel in an immigation proceeding, the
respondent must demonstate substantial prejudice resulting fom counsel's performance.
Goonuan v. Ashcrof, 252 F.3d 383, 385 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2001). Proving prejudice requires that
the respondent make a prima fcie showing that, absent counsel's defcient perfrance, he
would have been entitled to the relief he sought. Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir.
1994).
Te respondent raises several allegations of eror by frer counsel, including: assering that
he misrepresented to the respondent the events at his initial hearing; whether he presented an
unpublished Board decision to the Immigration Judge; and counsel's actions with respect to
challenging the moral tuitude charge and the Immigation Judge's evaluation of te sae. We
initially note that an Immigration Judge and this Board are not bound by eiter unpublished
Board decisions, or by the out-of-circuit cases cited in the respondent's motion (Motion at 11, 28-
29). Matter of Anelmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989) (explaining that te Board historically
fllows a cour's precedent in cases arising in that circuit). Therefre, counsel's alleged failure to
ensure that an upublished decision was presented befre the Immigation Judge is not, without
more, prejudicial. We also note that the decision cited by the respondent does not stand fr the
proposition that te respondent's conviction is not a crime involving moral turpitude, but rater
remands fr the type of aalysis conducted by the Board in in this case in evaluating the
respondent's appeal.
W F * W v = 1 = M %

I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Alfred Ajanga Ahuta, A200 229 217 (BIA Sept. 5, 2013)
:
t
. .
A200 229 217
In addition, the Board has already addressed in detail whether the Immigation Judge
properly fund te respondent removable as charged. I doing so, the Board ackowledged the
manner in which the Immigration Judge conducted his analysis, and in t evaluated the issue of
te respondent's removability in light of the proper analytical methodology. Thus, the respondent
has not show that he was substantially prejudiced as a result of frmer counsel's alleged
defcient perforance.
As we fnd tat the respondent has not demonstated that his motion is subject to equitable
tolling based on inefective assistance of counsel, his motion is untimely and reopening is not
waranted. Lara v. Trominski, supra. Accordingly, the fllowing order shall be entered.
ORER: Te motion is denied.
OR TE BOA
2
M W . ... . WW .WW.- X WP
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Alfred Ajanga Ahuta, A200 229 217 (BIA Sept. 5, 2013)