Yenny Carrillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YENNY CARRILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1536
Agency No.
A097-886-193
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 4, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: CLIFTON, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Yenny Carrillo petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) decision denying her third motion to reopen and reissue on the grounds
that ineffective assistance of counsel prevented her from timely appealing the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 6 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1536
BIA’s December 2020 order denying her second motion to reopen based on
changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
the petition.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Perez-
Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 788, 792 (9th Cir. 2022). “Questions of law,
including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance, we review
de novo.” Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2005). To
establish prejudice, the petitioner must show that counsel’s assistance was “so
inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Correa-
Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations
omitted). Prejudice is presumed when a petitioner is “prevented from filing an
appeal in an immigration proceeding due to counsel’s error,” but that presumption
is rebuttable if the petitioner does not show “plausible grounds for relief.”
Dearinger ex rel. Volkova v. Reno, 232 F.3d 1042, 1045–46 (9th Cir. 2000).
Even assuming, as the BIA did, that Carrillo’s counsel was ineffective, her
motion to reopen and reissue fails to state any plausible grounds that may have
entitled her to relief. In her motion to reopen, Carrillo argued that her daughter’s
entry into adolescence made her an “easy target” for sexual violence in Colombia
and constituted a “changed circumstance[] in country conditions.” The BIA
concluded in its December 2020 order that this argument did “not establish[] a

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1536
prima facie case for the relief sought,” and Carrillo fails to establish that a different
outcome would have been reached even with the assistance of competent counsel.
The BIA thus did not err in finding that Carrillo did not establish prejudice
resulting from counsel’s alleged misconduct. See id.
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --