Audencio Edgar Roblero 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUDENCIO EDGAR ROBLERO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-74012
08-72710
Agency No. A071-637-102
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In No. 06-74012, Audencio Edgar Roblero, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

/Research 08-72710 2
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. In No. 08-72710, Roblero
petitions for review of the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due
process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in
immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review.
Assuming Roblero’s evidence to be credible, the agency determined that
Roblero failed to establish that he suffered or fears persecution on account of a
protected ground. The record does not compel a contrary result. See Tecun-
Florian v. INS, 207 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s denial of Roblero’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Roblero failed
to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113
(9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

/Research 08-72710 3
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Roblero failed to show the hardship to a qualifying relative required for
cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th
Cir. 2005). Roblero’s contention that the agency failed to consider his evidence of
hardship in the aggregate does not present a colorable claim. See id.
We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Roblero failed to establish that
former counsel’s representation resulted in prejudice, and thus Roblero’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94.
To the extent Roblero challenges the BIA’s decision to not exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), we lack
jurisdiction. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --