Testo completo
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MAUDELIO REMIGIO DELEON-
BARRIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74844
Agency No. A076-861-637
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maudelio Remigio Deleon-Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
FILED
APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
07-74844 2
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for cancellation of removal and denying his motion to remand based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand and de novo questions of law. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th
Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Deleon-Barrios’ motion to
remand because he did not demonstrate that his former counsel failed to perform
with sufficient competence. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th
Cir. 2005); see also Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986)
(attorney’s decision to forego contesting deportability was a tactical decision that
did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance).
Deleon-Barrios has waived any challenge to the BIA’s dismissal of his
appeal from the IJ’s decision denying his cancellation of removal application. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --