Hernandez-Carapia v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 562 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           JUN 03 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ-CARAPIA,                     No. 07-74921
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A070-927-907
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Guillermo Hernandez-Carapia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
    from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims in immigration
    proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 
    526 F.3d 1243
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per
    curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    The BIA did not violate due process in dismissing Hernandez-Carapia’s
    ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where Hernandez-Carapia failed to comply
    with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA
    1988), and the face of the record does not show a “clear and obvious case of
    ineffective assistance of counsel.” Castillo-Perez v. INS, 
    212 F.3d 518
    , 526 (9th
    Cir. 2000).
    We lack jurisdiction over Hernandez-Carapia’s contentions regarding the
    IJ’s denial of his last motion to continue, as he did not challenge that decision
    before the BIA, where he addressed only an earlier continuance related to the
    reinstatement of his first wife’s I-130 application. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 
    469 F.3d 1317
    , 1319 (9th Cir. 2006) (no jurisdiction over issues raised for the first time
    on appeal to this court).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                    07-74921
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-74921

Citation Numbers: 382 F. App'x 562

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/3/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024