Jose Ramiro-Ramirez v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RAMIRO-RAMIREZ, No. 16-71329
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-161-151
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: LIPEZ,*** WARDLAW, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ramiro-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal
from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the
First Circuit, sitting by designation.
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in deeming Ramiro’s application
abandoned. When Ramiro originally proffered an incomplete application, the IJ
rejected it but extended the filing deadline. Ramiro did not file any application by
that deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c); cf. Casares-Castellon v. Holder, 603 F.3d
1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). And, he does not argue that the IJ abused
his discretion in rejecting the initial application.
2. Ramiro was not denied due process. His counsel was notified about the
extended application deadline, and the failure to meet that deadline therefore does
not implicate due process, absent ineffective assistance of counsel. See Singh v.
Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1014–15 (9th Cir. 2005). Whether Ramiro received
effective assistance was not before the BIA and is not at issue in this petition for
review. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting
that “in the vast majority of cases,” the BIA considers ineffective assistance in a
motion to reopen).
PETITION DENIED.
2