Case ID: f-appx_105/html/0950-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mario SANTANA; Leonor Portillo Gomez; Jose A. Gomez Portillo; Vitaliana Gomez Portillo; and Lizidet Gomez Portillo, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70924.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2004.
    
    Decided Sept. 2, 2004.
    Arielle N. Bases, Esq., Law Office of Arielle Bases, Encino, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., James E. Grimes, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Santana, Leonor Portillo Gomez, Jose A. Gomez Portillo, Vitaliana Gomez Portillo, and Lizidet Gomez Portillo (“Petitioners”) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their application for suspension of deportation.

We have jurisdiction to review the Petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process claim that they received ineffective assistance of counsel at their suspension of deportation hearing before the Immigration Judge (“U”). See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). However, we deny the petition because the Petitioners did not demonstrate that they were prejudiced such that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1226 (9th Cir. 2002).

To the extent that Petitioners seek review of the IJ’s determination that they did not prove their deportation would result in extreme hardship to themselves or a qualifying relative, we lack jurisdiction to review this determination. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.