Case ID: f-appx_161/html/0397-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aracely ZAMORA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60255.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Jan. 5, 2006.
    Lisa S. Brodyaga, Refugio De Rio Grande, San Benito, TX, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Jamie Marie Dowd, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Papú Sandhu, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, U,S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, San Antonio, TX, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Aracely Zamora-Garcia, a citizen of Mexico, has filed a petition seeking review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s (“U”) decision to deny her application for cancellation of removal as untimely. Because Zamora-Garcia’s petition for initial hearing en banc does not meet the requirements set forth in Fed. RApp. P. 35(b), that petition is DENIED. Respondent’s motion for summary disposition and Zamora-Garcia’s motion to strike respondent’s motion are DENIED. Further briefing, however, is not necessary.

Zamora-Garcia argues that the BIA and IJ had a duty to protect her from the alleged ineffectiveness of her accredited representative (“AR”). We are unaware of and Zamora-Garcia does not cite any authority which supports or forms a basis for her argument. Zamora-Garcia also argues that the BIA erred by rejecting her ineffective-assistance claim. Because Zamora-Garcia’s claim did not implicate the violation of a due process right, the BIA did not err in denying her claim for lack of prejudice. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 214-15 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Zamora-Garcia’s petition for review is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; PETITION FOR INITIAL HEARING EN BANC, MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.