Carlos Castro Segura 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS CASTRO SEGURA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71882
Agency No. A073-946-960
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Castro Segura, 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 under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the grant of the government’s motion to
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-71882 2
change venue. Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92 (9th Cir. 1988). We review de novo
whether the statutory right to counsel was violated, Mendoza-Mazariegos v.
Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007), and claims of due process
violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We
deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate due process by granting the
government’s motion to change venue where the government demonstrated good
cause and Segura did not oppose the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b) (IJ may
grant a motion for change of venue where good cause shown); see also Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a due process
violation).
The IJ did not deny Segura his right to counsel. The record indicates that
Segura knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at his Februrary 23,
2006, hearing. See Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103-05 (9th Cir. 2004)
(explaining requirements for waiver). Although Segura requested counsel at his
next hearing on May 4, 2006, the IJ “took reasonable steps to ensure that
[Segura’s] . . . right to counsel was honored” by granting him a continuance.
Mendoza-Mazariegos, 509 F.3d at 1080.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-71882 3
We do not reach Segura’s claim that the agency erred by denying his request
to withdraw his plea to the charge of removability because he waived any
challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that the government presented
clear and convincing evidence establishing his removability. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --