DINORAH MILLAN-PORTELA, AKA Dinorah A. Millan-Portela 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DINORAH MILLAN-PORTELA, AKA
Dinorah A. Millan-Portela,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73352
Agency No. A095-788-282
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 4, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dinorah Millan-Portela (Millan-Portela), petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
decision finding her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because she
FILED
APR 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
was convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT). We deny the
petition.
1. Millan-Portela failed to establish that any ineffective assistance of
counsel was prejudicial because her two theft convictions rendered her statutorily
ineligible for relief. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 903 (9th Cir. 2003).
Although Millan-Portela’s attorney was required to inform her of the immigration
consequences of her guilty plea pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla
v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), that case does not apply retroactively to Millan-
Portela’s claims. See Chaidez v. United States, No. 11-820, __ S. Ct. __, 2013 WL
610201, at *1 (Feb. 20, 2013).
2. The IJ’s failure to correct any errors made by counsel during the
removal proceedings did not render those proceedings “fundamentally unfair,” as
the IJ’s only responsibility is to advise the Petitioner of available relief. See United
States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that
an IJ is not responsible for advising a petitioner of relief that is not reasonably
available).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --