Keo

introduction of such evidence would harm Keo’s application for a waiver. Keo does

not rebut this assertion.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel’s

performance was not so inadequate it may have affected the outcome of the

proceedings. Even without the evidence of Cambodia’s healthcare system, the IJ

considered that Keo “will likely suffer significant hardship due to his medical

condition due to the inferior medical care in Cambodia.” Therefore, Keo’s counsel’s

failure to introduce evidence regarding inferior medical care in Cambodia did not

affect the outcome of the proceedings. Moreover, the BIA did not err in rejecting

the argument that Keo’s counsel was deficient, given the “strong presumption” that

the decision whether to introduce this evidence was within the “wide range of

reasonable professional assistance.” See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104

(2011) (citation omitted).

2. In the penultimate paragraph of his discussion, the IJ noted that Keo’s “CAT

claim was frivolous” and therefore it was “an additional adverse factor in [the] case.”

22-2039 Keo argues that his attorney was therefore…