LORENZO GARCIA-DELFIN, AKA Lorenzo Garcia Delfin, AKA Lorenzo Delfin-Garcia v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENZO GARCIA-DELFIN, AKA
Lorenzo Garcia Delfin, AKA Lorenzo
Delfin-Garcia,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72765
Agency No. A200-154-379
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Garcia-Delfin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
* 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).
FILED
JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72765
including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009,
1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err or violate due process in denying Garcia-Delfin’s
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to comply with the procedural
requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where prior
counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1089-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that failure to
satisfy Matter of Lozada requirements was fatal to ineffective assistance of counsel
claim where ineffectiveness was not plain on the face of the record); Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to
prevail on a due process challenge).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Garcia-Delfin
failed to show good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569
F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider). The BIA sufficiently explained its
decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding
the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --