Case ID: f-appx_333/html/0237-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roberto HUERTA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75314.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2009.
    Roberto Huerta-Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Matt Crapo, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Huerta-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

During proceedings, Huerta-Lopez conceded that he lacked a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Huerta-Lopez failed to establish that counsel did not perform with sufficient competence where Huerta-Lopez then withdrew his application for cancellation of removal and waived his right to appeal in favor of a grant of voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a). See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must first demonstrate that counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence); see also Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2005) (waiver of right to appeal must be “considered and intelligent”).

Huerta-Lopez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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