Foncham v. Gonzales

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60436
Summary Calendar
JENNETH TIFUH FONCHAM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A97 635 307
----------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cameroonian citizen Jenneth Tifuh Foncham petitions for review of the decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ)
denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings on the basis of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Foncham contends that the IJ should have deemed her motion unopposed and granted it;

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
that she was in substantial compliance with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I.
& N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988); that application of the Lozada requirements to her case violates due
process; and that application of the Lozada requirements violates equal protection by impeding her
fundamental right to counsel by placing her in a disadvantageous position vis a vis aliens who are
represented by accredited representatives.
The IJ was not required to grant Foncham’s unopposed motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.23(b)(1)(iv). Foncham has failed to brief the issue whether she can make a prima facie showing
that she would have obtained asylum or withholding of deportation but for the alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel. She therefore has failed to show the prejudice required to succeed on her due
process claims. See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994); Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, Foncham has failed to
show that requiring aliens who are represented by counsel to file complaints with the relevant
disciplinary authorities singles out a particular group for discriminatory treatment or impermissibly
interferes with a fundamental right. See Hatten v. Rains, 854 F.2d 687, 690 (5th Cir. 1988); Lavernia
v. Lynaugh, 845 F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir. 1988).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --