Case ID: f-appx_301/html/0687-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Odilon CUATECONTZI-FLORES; Alicia Xochitemol Nieves De Cuatecontzi, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75187.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2008.
    Douglas M. Lehrman, Esquire, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sylvia T. Kaser, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division-Appellate, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice Civil, Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Odilon Cuatecontzi-Flores and Aicia Xochitemol Nieves de Cuatecontzi, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal, and denying their motion to remand due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen children. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that the performance of petitioners’ former counsel did not result in prejudice, and thus their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Rurribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s conduct may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

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