Salomon Bouzaglo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALOMON BOUZAGLO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73954
Agency No. A095-628-962
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,*** District Judge.
FILED
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Salomon Bouzaglo petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA), rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal. Ineffective
assistance of counsel claims require a showing of constitutionally deficient
performance and prejudice, i.e., that counsel’s performance “may have affected the
outcome of the proceedings.” Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 794 (9th Cir.
2005) (emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted). The analysis
eschews “specific guidelines”—instead, it is a “context-dependent inquiry into
whether the attorney acted with ‘sufficient competence.’” Salazar-Gonzalez v.
Lynch, 798 F.3d 917, 921 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793).
Ineffectiveness and prejudice might be shown, for example, where a necessary
application or appeal is not filed. E.g., Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 588–89 (9th
Cir. 2006) (finding prejudice where BIA denied motion only due to the motion’s
untimeliness). But a claim of ineffective assistance fails, of course, if the petitioner
had no “plausible grounds for relief” in the first instance. Rojas-Garcia v.
Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Bouzaglo’s primary argument is that prior counsel’s failure to object to the
admission of the French and German conviction papers amounted to ineffective
assistance. He claims that this is the case, because the translators’ affidavits do not
2

-- 2 of 4 --

indicate who translated the documents, because the affidavits do not indicate which
documents were translated, because there is no way to tell whether the documents
were correctly translated, because the documents were not properly authenticated
and thus cannot serve as authentic records of conviction, and because the
Government cannot show that the Salomon Bouzaglo in the French and German
conviction papers is the same man as Petitioner Bouzaglo here.
We reject these arguments. As the BIA noted, the translators’ names are
identified in the affidavits, and Bouzaglo does not identify any portions of these
documents that he contends are incorrectly translated. The affidavits appear
standard and sufficient, and they identify the translated documents. Further, prior
counsel did object to the consideration of these documents for other reasons, i.e.,
that Bouzaglo did not receive a fair trial, and that the convictions do not qualify as
crimes of moral turpitude. The IJ rejected these arguments.
Moreover, prior counsel did not perform ineffectively by failing to argue
that the conviction papers do not allow one to determine whether the European
convict Bouzaglo is indeed the same man as Petitioner Bouzaglo. Although
Bouzaglo now argues he is “factually innocent,” and denies having “traffic[ked]
any narcotics in France or Germany,” he nonetheless already admitted to the
3

-- 3 of 4 --

convictions, both in his 2003 application for adjustment of status, and in his papers
submitted to the IJ.
Bouzaglo also argues that prior counsel’s failure to apply for asylum,
withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief amounts to
ineffective assistance of counsel. But Bouzaglo points to no “plausible grounds for
[that] relief.” Rojas-Garcia, 339 F.3d at 826 (internal quotation marks omitted).
As the BIA correctly held, he has not established prima facie eligibility for such
relief, because his fear of criminals bears no nexus to a protected ground, nor does
it demonstrate an unwillingness of the respective foreign governments to assist
him. See Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010) (asylum and
withholding of removal require a showing of persecution “committed by the
government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We deny the petition for review.
4

-- 4 of 4 --