Jose Graciano Rodriguez- Canchola; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE GRACIANO RODRIGUEZ-
CANCHOLA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70036
Agency Nos. A079-570-398
A079-570-399
A079-570-400
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Graciano Rodriguez-Canchola, Maria Celia Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”),
and their daughter Maria Alejandra Rodriguez-Barcena, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JTK/Research 06-70036 2
their motion to remand and dismissing their appeals from an immigration judge’s
orders denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
continuous physical presence and good moral character determinations,
Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 851-52 (9th Cir. 2004); Bernal v. INS,
154 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998), we review de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings, and we review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to remand, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.
2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez’s
expedited removal order prevented her from accruing the continuous physical
presence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Juarez-
Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511-12 (9th Cir. 2007) (an expedited removal
order interrupts accrual of continuous physical presence for purposes of
cancellation of removal).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Rodriguez-Canchola provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an
immigration benefit, thereby rendering him unable to establish the requisite good

-- 2 of 3 --

JTK/Research 06-70036 3
moral character. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1229c(b)(1)(B); see
also Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
We agree with the BIA that the performance of petitioners’ former attorney
did not result in prejudice, and thus their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
fails. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-90.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --