Pedro Ramos-Gonzalez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PEDRO RAMOS-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74177
Agency No. A073-436-681
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Ramos-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
JUN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74177 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and de
novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th
Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramos-Gonzalez’s motion
to remand due to ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to comply with
the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988),
and the ineffective assistance he alleges 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 Ramos-
Gonzalez’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --