U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

Ramos-Gonzalez v. Holder

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 11, 2010 · Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

383 F. App'x 641

Counsel

Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner., OIL, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Esquire, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Ramos-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of *642 the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramos-Gonzalez’s motion to remand due to ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004). It follows that Ramos-Gonzalez’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.