Jose Peraza Godinez v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANGEL PERAZA GODINEZ; et. No. 09-73873
al,
Agency Nos. A095-244-610
Petitioners, A099-069-380
A099-069-381
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Angel Peraza Godinez, Blanca Elia Peraza, and their son, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, including claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners’ contention that their due process rights were violated when the
IJ permitted them to appear pro se and denied an earlier motion for a continuance
fails because the IJ advised them of their right to be represented by counsel, and
because the petitioners indicated that they were prepared to proceed with the
hearing. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing
requirements for a valid knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel). Moreover,
petitioners have failed to allege prejudice.
The BIA also did not err in denying petitioners’ ineffective assistance of
counsel claim because petitioners failed to comply with the requirements set forth
in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and the alleged
ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73873