Juan Cano-Pedro; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CANO-PEDRO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1007
Agency Nos.
A215-676-928
A215-676-929
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Cano-Pedro and his minor son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering
them removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
* 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 6 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-1007
proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We
deny the petition for review.
Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process in failing to advise
them of apparent eligibility for relief fails because they have not shown error.
See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail
on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights
and prejudice.”); see also Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1223 (9th Cir.
2021) (IJ had no duty to advise noncitizen of apparent eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal where he did not express a fear of persecution that
could support a plausible claim for relief).
The BIA did not err in concluding the IJ did not violate petitioners’ right
to counsel. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (IJ did not
violate right to counsel where applicant was provided “reasonable time to locate
counsel”); Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --