Cano-Pedro v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 6, 2023
• Docket: 21-1007
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 6 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CANO-PEDRO; et al., No. 21-1007 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A215-676-928 A215-676-929 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Juan Cano-Pedro and his minor son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering

them removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We

deny the petition for review.

Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process in failing to advise

them of apparent eligibility for relief fails because they have not shown error.

See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail

on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights

and prejudice.”); see also Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1223 (9th Cir.

2021) (IJ had no duty to advise noncitizen of apparent eligibility for asylum or

withholding of removal where he did not express a fear of persecution that

could support a plausible claim for relief).

The BIA did not err in concluding the IJ did not violate petitioners’ right

to counsel. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (IJ did not

violate right to counsel where applicant was provided “reasonable time to locate

counsel”); Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 21-1007