T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OS C ARAR MAND O L AR I NDO M I NG UEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73105 A ge nc yN o. A 014- 185- 015 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d F e brua ry5, 2013 S ubm i tt e d M a y16, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dN G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O s c a rA rm a ndo L a r i n- D om i ngue z , ac i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , appe a l s the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n hi s 2004 r e m ova l pr oc e e di ng s o tha the c a n appl yf orc a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l . L a r i nD o m in g u e z c la im s th a t: ( 1 ) h e r e c e iv e din e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l a t h is 

# FI LED MA Y17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he gove rnm e ntc ont e nds tha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on be c aus e L a r i n- 1 D o m in g u e z ’s p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w is m o o t. See C oo k I nl et T re at y T ri bes v . Sh a la la , 166 F . 3d 986, 989 ( 9th C i r . 1999) . A c c or di ng t o the gove rnm e nt , w e c a nnot prov i de L ar i n-D om i ng uez w i th an eff ec t i ve re m edy gi ven thathe re m ai ns subj ec t t o as e pa r a t e , i nde pe nde nt l ye xe c ut e d 2005 r e m ova l or de rf ori l l e ga l e ntryw i thout in s p e c tio n . H o w e v e r , th e 2 0 0 5 r e m o v a l is n o t th e s u b je c t o f th is ap p e a l, a n dit is concei vabl e thatL ar i n-D om i ng uez c ou l d b ri ng a s epar at e c hal l enge t o thatre m ov al order and/ or i t s s ub se qu entre i nst at em ent . G i ven thi s possi bi l i ty, w e c anno tsay tha ti ti s “ i m pos s i bl e f

or[ us ] t o gr a nta nye f

f e c tua l r e l i e f

w ha t e ve rt o [ L a r i nD om i ng uez] . ” K

nox v . Se rv . E m

p. I nt ’ l U ni on L oc al

1000 , 132 S . C t . 2277, 2287 ( 2 0 1 2 ) . C o n s e q u e n tly , w e f in dL a r in - D o m in g u e z ’s p e titio n is n o t m o o t.

2 2004 he a r i ng; ( 2) hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “I J ” ) f a ile dto a d e q u a te lya d v is e h im r e g a r d in g h is r ig h t to c o u n s e l; a n d( 3 ) h is w a i ve rof

appe a l w a s notc ons i de r e d a nd i nt e l l i ge nt . T he B I A de ni e d L a r i nD om i ngue z ’ s m ot i on on the gr ounds tha the f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pr e

j udi c e a nd va l i dl yw a i ve d appe a l of the r e m ova l or de r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e g r a n t L a r in - D o m in g u e z ’s p e titio n a n dr e m a n d . 1 L a r i n- D om i ngue z ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n w a s notf i l e d w i thi n ni ne tyda y s of the e n tryo f h i s r e mo v a l o r d e ra s r e q u i r e db y8 U . S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C) ( i ) a n d8 C. F. R. § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) . H ow e ve r , he i s e nt i t l e d t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng of the f i l i ng de a dl i ne b e c au s e o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. Se e So c o

p - G o n z a lezv . I

NS , 272 F . 3d 11 76 , 11 91 –9 3 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( no t i ng thatthe fi l i ng peri od for am ot i on t o reopen is s u b je c t to e q u itab le to llin g o n th e b a s is o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l) . W e3

r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of L a r i n- D om i ngue z ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n f orabus e of d is c r e tio n . H

e v . G on zales , 5 0 1 F .3 d1 1 2 8 , 1 1 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . 1. T he B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n f i ndi ng tha tL a r i n- D om i ngue z w a s not prej ud i ce d b y hi s c ou nsel ’ s f ai l ure t o app ear a tthe 20 04 re m ov al hear i ng . H ad L a r in - D o m in g u e z b e e n r e p r e s e n te db yc o m p e te n t c o u n s e l a t th e tim e o f h is r e m o v a l h e a r in g , h e c o u ldh a v e p lau s ib lyo b ta in e dr e lie f f r o m d e p o rta tio n . See R o ja s - G a r c ia v . A s h c r o

ft , 339 F . 3d 814, 826 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( “ P r e j udi c e i s f

ound w he n the pe r f

orm a nc e of

c ouns e l w a s s o i na de qua t e tha ti tm a yha ve a f f e c t e d the out c om e of

the pr oc e e di ngs . ” ( quot i ng Ca s t i l lo - Pe r ezv . I NS , 212 F . 3d 518, 527 n .1 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ) ) ; Si ngh v . A s h c r o ft , 367 F . 3d 1182, 1189 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( f i ndi ng pr e

j udi c e e s t abl i s he d w he r e e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d “ c oul d pl aus i bl yha ve s upport e d af

i ndi ng tha t[ the pe t i t i one r ] w a s e l i gi bl e f orr e l i e f ” ( a l t e r a t i on a nd in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) . A l though ouropi ni on i n Ca z a r ez - G u tie rr ezv . A s h c r o ft , 3 5 6 F .3 d1 0 1 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )

— u n d e rw h ic h L a r in - D o m in g u e z ’s c o c a in e p o s s e s s io n c o n v ic tio n w o u ld no l on ger qual i fyas an aggravat ed fe l on y f or i m m i grat i on pu rposes — had b ee n w i thd raw n atthe t i m e of L ar i n-D om i ng uez’ s heari ng , the procedural hi st ory of that c a s e s tr ongl ys ugge s t e d tha tourw i thdr a w a l c onc e rne d j ur i s di c t i ona l i s s ue s , notthe u n d e r ly in g m e r its . U n d e rs u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s , L a r in - D o m in g u e z ’s a tto rn e ylik e ly4

w oul d ha ve s oughtac ont i nua nc e pe ndi ng r e s ol ut i on of thi s hi ghl yr e l e va nt c a s e , or atthe veryl ea st , advi se d h i m no tt o w ai ve appeal . H ad L ar i n-D om i ng uez obt ai ned ac o n tin u a n c e , h e c o u ldh a v e ap p lie df o rc a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l w ith th e b e n e f it of ourf i na l de c i s i on i n Ca z a r ez - G u tie rr ezv . A s h c r o ft , 38 2 F . 3d 90 5 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) , w h ic h w a s r e is s u e din s u b s ta n tia llyth e s a m e f o rm ju s t w e e k s a f

te rh is r e m ova l he a r i ng. C ons e que nt l y , L a r i n- D om i ngue z w oul d ha ve be e n e l i gi bl e f or c a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b ( a ) . I ti s a l s o pl aus i bl e tha tthe I Jw oul d ha ve e xe r c i s e d di s c r e t i on i n f a vorof a w a r di ng L a r i n- D om i ngue z c a nc e l l a t i on of r e m ova l , gi ve n tha the ha d l i ve d i n the U ni t ed S t at es for f

orty y ears , had b ee n a l aw ful perm anentre si dentsi nce he w as f iv e y e a r s o ld , a n dh a s U .S . c itiz e n p a r e n ts a n dc h ild r e n . 2. T he B I A a l s o abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng L a r i n- D om i ngue z ’ s m ot i on to r e o p e n o n d u e p r o c e s s g r o u n d s . W h e n L a r in - D o m in g u e z ’s c o u n s e l f a ile dto appear, the IJoffe re d h i m a c on t i nu ance i n o rdert o sec ure hi s a tt orney’ s pre se nce a tthe he a r i ng. H ow e ve r , the I Jdi d noti nf orm L a r i n- D om i ngue z tha the ha d a ri gh tt o an att orney other than the on e thathe had al re ady r et ai ned (and w ho had f a i l e d t o appe a r ) . H e a l s o f a i l e d t o a dvi s e L ar i n- D om i ngue z a s t o the pos s i bi l i tyof o b ta in in g f

r e e le g a l s e rv ic e s o rp r o v id e h im w ith alis t o f s u c h s e rv ic e s . T h is c o n s titu te dav io la tio n o f L a r in - D o m in g u e z ’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h t to c o u n s e l. See5

H erna ndez -G i l

v. G on zales , 47 6 F . 3d 80 3, 80 8 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( “ W hen an i m m i granthas e ng aged coun se l and the IJi s aw ar e of the re pres ent at i on , i f c ou nsel fa il s to ap p ea r, th e I J m u st tak e r ea so n ab le step s to en su re th at th e im m ig ra n t’ s st atut ory r i gh tt o cou nsel i s hon ored. ”) ; 8 C . F . R . § 1240. 10( a ) ( 2) –( 3) ( di r e c t i ng tha tthe I J“ s ha l l . . . ( 1) [ a ] dvi s e the r e s ponde ntof hi s orhe rr i ghtt o r e pr e s e nt a t i on

. . . byc ouns e l of

hi s orhe row n c hoi c e . . . [ , ] ( 2) [ a ] dvi s e the r e s ponde ntof the a v a ilab ilityo f

f r e e le g a l s e rv ic e s . . . lo c a te din th e d is tr ic t . . . [ , a n d ] ( 3 ) [ a ]s c e rta in thatthe re spon denthas r ec ei ved a l i stof such prog ram s . . . ”) . L ar i n-D om i ng uez n e e dn o t s h o w p r e

ju d ic e to p r e v a il o n h is d u e p r o c e s s c la im . Mon tes -L op ezv. H older , 694 F . 3d 1085, 1093–94 ( 9th C i r . 2012) . E ve n i f he di d, w e w oul d f

i nd tha the w a s pr e

j udi c e d f orthe r e a s ons di s c us s e d su p ra . 3. T he IJfa i l ed t o i nform L ar i n-D om i ng uez of hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel and then advi se d h i m thathe w as i nel i gi bl e f or cancel l at i on of re m ov al , no tw i thst andi ng that ouri ni t i a l de c i s i on i n Ca za rez-G u t i errez strong l y s ug gest ed otherw i se . U nd er the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , L a r i n- D om i ngue z ’ s w a i ve rof appe a l w a s notc ons i de r e d a nd in te llig e n t. Se e U

n ite d S ta tes v . A rr ie ta , 224 F . 3d 1076, 1079 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( “ W i thout. . . i nf

orm a t i on [ a s t o the a va i l abi l i tyof r e l i e f f r om de port a t i on, the a l i e n] , w ho w a s notr e pr e s e nt e d byc ouns e l , c oul d notm a ke ac ons i de r e d a nd6

i nt el l i gentdeci si on abou tw hether t o app l y f or [r el i ef ] , and cou l d n otm ake a c o n s id e r e da n din te llig e n t d e c is io n ab o u t w h e th e rto ap p e a l th e I J ’s . . . o r d e r .” ) . P E T I T I ON GR AN T E D.