Martha Almendarez-Arujo 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA ALMENDAREZ-ARUJO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70491
Agency No. A073-809-469
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.
Martha Almendarez-Arujo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 06-70491 2
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand, and review de novo questions of law, 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 deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Almendarez-Arujo’s motion
to remand because Almendarez-Arujo failed to comply with the requirements set
forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective
assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004). It follows that Almendarez-Arujo’s due process claim
fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Almendarez-Arujo’s contentions
regarding prejudice.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --