Bernardo Guzman-Aranda v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARDO GUZMAN-ARANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74272
Agency No. A047-347-949
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Guzman-Aranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 07-74272 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether the statutory right to counsel was
violated. Mendoza-Mazariegos v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1074,1079 (9th Cir. 2007).
We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
Guzman-Aranda was denied his statutory right to counsel because the IJ
failed to secure his knowing and voluntary waiver of the right, see Hernandez-Gil
v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 2007), and did not “inquire whether there
[was] good cause to grant [Guzman-Aranda] more time to obtain counsel,” Biwot
v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the absence of
counsel at Guzman-Aranda’s hearing resulted in prejudice. See Tawadrus v.
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2004) (alien demonstrated prejudice where
an attorney could have assisted him in his testimony and could have made legal
objections to the admission of certain evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --