NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
R UDY FAUSTINO GOM EZ ) No. 09-73086 HER NANDEZ, ) ) Age n c y

No. A074-180-961 Pe titione r, ) ) M EM OR

A NDUM * v. ) ) ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y ) Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Nove m

be r 5, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, FER NANDEZ, a

nd IKUTA, C irc u i t Judge s. R udy Fa ustino Gome z He rnande z , a native and c i tiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de n ia l of his



# FIL ED NOV 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a

pplic ation for a s y lum , 1 withholding of rem ova l, 2 and C onve ntion Aga inst Torture
re lie f. 3 W e grant the pe tition. Gom e z a sse rts tha

t his right to due

proc e ss unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt to the U nite d State s C o nstitution wa s viola te d be c a use he wa s de n ie d his sta

tutory right to repre se ntation by c ounse l. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1362. W e a gre e . Tha t right is of the utm ost im

porta nc e , 4 but a

m e re two we e ks be fore his sc he dule d a sy lum he aring, the Im

m igration Judge(IJ) re lie ve d his a ttorne y and Gom e z wa s se nt notic e of tha

t . He wa s a l so notifie d tha t he wa s re q

uire d to a ppe ar and proc e e d on the a ppointe d date with or without c ounse l, a nd tha t no c ontinua

nc e would be gran te d. He did a

p p e ar without c ounse l , a

nd with little

furthe r a do the he aring proc e e de d. The IJ did not a sk if he wishe d to wa ive c o unse l, a nd, of c ourse , did not re c e ive a

knowing a

nd volunta

ry wa ive r. Se e Ta

wa drus v. Ashc roft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th C ir. 2004). Tha t wa s unsa

t isfa c tory . Gom e z ’ s right to c ounse l

1 8 U.S.C . § 1158. 2 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3). 3 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Aga i nst Tortureand Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre atm e nt or Punishm e nt, a d opte d De c . 10, 1984, S. Tre at y Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

at 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.18. 4 Se e B a l ta z ar-Alc a z ar v. INS, 386 F.3d 940, 944–45 (9th C ir. 2004); C a stroO’ R y an v. U.S. De p’ t of Im

m igration & Natura l iz ation, 847 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th C ir. 1988). 2wa s viola

te d by the c onc ate n ation of theIJ’ s re le a se of prior c ounse l, the shortne ss of the tim e Gom e z wa s give n to obtain ne w c ounse l, who ha d to be re a dy to proc e e d, the notic e tha

t he c ould not obta

in a ny c ontinua nc e s, a nd the IJ’ s fa ilure to inquire into his de sire for re p re se ntation be fore proc e e ding. Se e M onte s-Lope z v. Holde r, 694 F.3d 1085, 1088–89 (9th C ir. 2012); B i wot v. Gonz a le s , 403 F.3d 1094, 1098–99 (9th C ir. 2005); Ta wa drus, 364 F.3d a

t 1103–04; R

ios-B e rrios v. I.N.S., 776 F.2d 859, 862–63 (9th C ir. 1985). M ore ove r, “ a n a lie n who shows tha

t he ha s be e n de nie d the sta t utory right to bere pre se nte d by c ounse l in a

n im m igration proc e e ding ne e d not a lso show tha t he wa s pre

judic e d by

the a bse nc e of the attorne y .” M o nte s -Lope z , 694 F.3d a t 1093–94. 5 Pe tition GR

ANTED.

5 B e c a u se our de c ision on this ground is dispositive , we ne e d not, a

nd do not, c onside r the othe r issue s ra ise d by the pa rtie s. 3Gome

z He rnande

z v . Holde r , 09-73086 Ikuta , J., c onc urring: I c onc ur in the m a

jority ’ s de c ision re luc ta

ntly . Although I a

m bound by Monte s-Lope z v . Holde r ’ s holding tha

t the de nia l of a

n a lie n’ s sta

t utory right to
c ounse l is pe r se re ve rsible e rror, 694 F.3d 1085, 1090, 1093–94 (9th Cir. 2012), this c onc l usion c ontra d ic ts our pre c e de n t s, se e Singh v
. Holde r , 638 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th C ir. 2011); Taw a drus v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th C i r. 2004); C astro-O’Ry an v . U.S. De

p’t of Immigration &

N aturalization , 847 F.2d 1307, 1312–13 (9th C ir. 1987), is c ontra ry to ba sic princ iple s of a d

m inistra t ive la w, se e Shinsek i v . Sande rs , 556 U.S. 396, 406–07 (2009), a nd c o m e s down on the

wrong side of a c irc uit split, se e

, e .g. , Ogbe mudia v . IN

S , 988 F.2d 595, 598 (5th C ir. 1993) (re quiring a

pe titione r who a lle ge s a

de nia l of the right to c ounse l in im m igration proc e e dings to de m onstra te pre judic e ); F arrok hi v
. IN S , 900 F.2d 697, 702 (4th C i r. 1990) (sa

m e ); Mic he lson v . IN

S , 897 F.2d 465, 468 (10th C i r. 1990) (sam e ). Monte s-Lope z ’ s im prope r re lia

nc e on Sixth Am e ndm e nt pre c e de nts, se e 694 F.3d at 1092, side -ste ps our long-e s ta blishe d rule tha

t a pe titione r ha s only

a sta tutory right to c ounse l , 8 U.S.C . § 1362, tha t “ ste m [s] from

the Fifth Am e ndm e nt gua

rante e of due proc e ss,” Taw a drus , 364 F.3d a t 1103. Our pre c e de nts m ake c le ar that viola tions of theFifth Am e ndm e nt gua rante e of due 

# FIL ED NOV 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSproc e s s in theim m igration c o nte xt a

re subje c t to re v ie w for ha rm le ss e rror. Se e

, e .g. , Singh , 638 F.3d a

t 1209 (re je c ting c la im

of due proc e ss e rror whe re the pe titione r c ould not de m o nstra te pre judic e ); Sanc he

z -C ruz v . IN S, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th C i r. 2001) (re quiring a n a lie n to de m onstra

te pre judic e to obta in re lie f from a B IA de c ision tha

t viola te s due proc e ss). Inde e d, we have e xpla ine d tha t the
a ge nc y ’ s fa ilure to a c c ord a n a l ie n the sta

t utory right to c ounse l would a

m ount to a de nia l of due proc e ss only “ [i] f the pre

judic e to the a l ie n is suffic ie ntly gre at.” C astro-O’Ry an , 847 F.2d a t 1313. In re a c hing thee rrone ous c onc lusion tha t a viola tion of a pe titione r’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt right is a struc tura l e rror re quiring
re m and in e ve ry

c a se , Monte

s-Lope z turne d its ba c k on the se binding pre c e de nts. Not only doe s M onte s-Lope z ’ s c onc lusion c onflic t with our c a s e la w, it a lso
c ontra dic ts ba sic princ iple s of a dm inistra tive la w. As the Supre m e C ourt e xpla ine d in Shinsek

i v
. Sande rs , fe de ra l c ourts m ay not pre sum e tha

t a n a dm inistra

tive
a ge nc y ’ s e rror wa s pre

judic ia l, but ra

the r m ust de te rm ine ha

rm le ssne ss on a

fa c tspe c ific , c a se by

c a se ba sis. 556 U.S. a

t 407. Although Sande rs artic ulate d this rule in the c onte xt of ve t e ran c la im s a p pe a ls, the C ourt note d this rulea pplie d to othe r a dm inistra

tive a ge nc y

de c isions a s we l l. Id. at 406. And wehave like wise
a c knowle dge d the a

pplic a bility of this rulein im

m igration proc e e d ings. CastroO’Ry a n , 847 F.2d a

t 1313; se e also Zolotuk

hin v . Gonzale

s , 417 F.3d 1073,
21076–77 (9th C ir. 2005) (holding tha t the pe titione r m

ust show pre

judic e be fore we c an gra nt a pe tition for re vie w ba se d on a due proc e ss viola

tion). Inde e d, the re is no logic a l ba sis for holding tha t the de nia l of the sta

tutory right to c ounse l is a struc tura l e rror in im

m igration proc e e dings, pa rtic ula rly whe n suc h a

n e rror is
re vie we d for ha rm le ssne ss in other a d

m inistra t ive c onte xts. Se e Vidal v . Harris , 637 F.2d 710, 713 (9th C ir. 1981) (re quiring a soc ia l se c urity c la im ant to

“ de m onstra

te pre judic e or unfa irne ss in the a dm inistra tive proc e e dings” from

“ the
a bse nc e of c o unse l” ). Now, inste a d of following the c irc uits tha

t prope rly a dhe re to this longe sta blishe d a na ly sis a pplic a ble to a ge nc y

e rrors, Monte

s-Lope z and the out-ofc irc uit opinions on whic

h it re lie s ine xplic a

bly a ba ndon this sta

nda rd and inste a d tre at a n a lie n’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt sta tutory right to c ounse l “ at no e xpe nse to the gove rnm e nt” a s if it we re e quiva le nt to a c rim ina l de fe nda

n t’ s a bsoluteSixth Am e ndm e nt right to c ounse l. Monte s-Lope z , 694 F.3d a

t 1092–93. This
c onc lusion ha s no ba sis in the C onstitution or in pre c e de nt, a nd is c ontra

ry to Sande rs ’ s wa

rning a ga inst theuse of “ m andatory pre sum p tions a nd rigid rule s ra the r tha n c a se -spe c i fic a

p plic ation of judgme nt” in de te rm ining whe the r an a dm inistra

tive a ge nc y ’ s e rror re quire s re ve rsa l. 556 U.S. a t 407. Ac c ordingly , while I am

bound by Monte

s -Lope z , it wa s wrongly

de c ide d, 3and we should re visit this de c ision e n ba nc .

4