Case ID: f-appx_181/html/0641-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos Garcia AGUAYO; Karla Murillo Beltran; Karla Garcia Murillo; Carlos Garcia Murillo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-74594.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2006.
    
    Decided May 18, 2006.
    Carlos Garcia Aguayo, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Karla Beltran, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    NVL-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Garcia Aguayo, Karla Murillo Beltran, and their two minor children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that they had waived their right to appeal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo, U.S. v. Garza-Sanchez, 217 F.3d 806, 808 (9th Cir.2000), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Although it is unclear from the record whether the petitioners’ waiver of appeal was considered and intelligent, the petitioners have not established a violation of due process because they have not demonstrated that any prejudice resulted from the waiver. See U.S. v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir.2004) (alien must show plausible grounds for relief to establish prejudice).

To the extent the petitioners allege ineffective assistance by their former counsel, the claim was not exhausted and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 1066, 1079 n. 5 (9th Cir.2004). The petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s decision is a “boilerplate” decision is unpersuasive. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.