Opinion ID: 688397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of Right to Appeal to the BIA

Text: 10 The government argues that we do not have jurisdiction to review Melo-Marroquin's claims of IJ error and ineffective assistance of counsel because Melo-Marroquin waived his right to appeal to the BIA. The government reasons that Melo-Marroquin's waiver (1) rendered the IJ's decision final, (2) divested the BIA of jurisdiction over Melo-Marroquin's attempted appeal, and (3) precluded Melo-Marroquin from properly exhausting his claims before presenting them to this court. Melo-Marroquin contends that his waiver was not valid. We review determinations of the BIA de novo. De La Cruz v. INS, 951 F.2d 226, 228 (9th Cir.1991). 11 Although a deportee may waive his right to judicial review of his deportation order, that waiver must be considered and intelligent. Otherwise, the deportee is deprived of judicial review in violation of due process. United States v. Lopez-Vasquez, 1 F.3d 751, 753 (9th Cir.1993) (quotation and citations omitted). An alien, however, has been denied the full and fair hearing which due process provides only if the thing complained of causes the alien to suffer some prejudice. Nicholas v. INS, 590 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir.1979). 12 Here, it is unclear whether Melo-Marroquin's waiver was considered and intelligent. See United States v. Proa-Tovar, 975 F.2d 592, 593 (9th Cir.1992) (the government conceded that alien's waiver of his direct appeal rights was not knowing and intelligent where alien's attorney expressly waived alien's right to appeal, but where alien was not properly advised of such right). Even if Melo-Marroquin's waiver was not considered and intelligent, however, he cannot demonstrate prejudice suffered as a result of the waiver as required. Id. at 593; Nicholas, 590 F.2d at 809. As discussed below, Melo-Marroquin's underlying claim lacks merit because the IJ did not err in finding his criminal conviction final and because his counsel could not have changed the IJ's mind regarding the finality of his conviction even if he had discussed Melo-Marroquin's pending habeas petition more fully. Thus, even if the BIA erred by affirming the IJ's ruling that he had waived his right to appeal, Melo-Marroquin cannot demonstrate prejudice and thus was not denied due process. Proa-Tovar, 975 F.2d at 593. 13