Glenford Prince v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 498 F. App'x 712 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENFORD PRINCE, a.k.a. Dwayne No. 11-72454
Stewart,
Agency No. A045-876-676
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Glenford Prince, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and rejecting his untimely brief. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th
Cir. 2008), and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Prince’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or
with consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Jamaica. See
Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
We reject Prince’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by
failing to accept his untimely brief because the BIA gave Prince prior notice of the
briefing schedule, and his failure to file a timely brief was not due to the actions of
the BIA. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1013-14.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Prince’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim because he failed to properly exhaust it before the agency. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-72454