Wilhelm Roberto Straube 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WILHELM ROBERTO STRAUBE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72054
Agency No. A027-623-342
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Wilhelm Roberto Straube, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture,
FILED
OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-72054 2
suspension of deportation, and special rule cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s findings of fact, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and
review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Straube was
deportable as an alien who entered the United States without inspection where
Straube twice conceded the allegation before the IJ. Contrary to Straube’s
contention, entry without inspection was a ground of deportability at the time of
Straube’s entry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2) (1976).
The BIA adequately addressed Straube’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Substantial record evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Straube did
not comply with the procedural requirements to establish an ineffective assistance
of counsel claim. See Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988).
Because Straube was imprisoned for more than 180 days for petty theft with
a prior during the relevant time period, he is statutorily barred from showing good
moral character, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7), as required for suspension of
deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.65, and special rule cancellation of removal, see 8
C.F.R. § 1240.66.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-72054 3
Straube’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
We deny the motion for appointment of counsel contained in Straube’s
opening brief, and we deny the motion for stay of removal filed on September 12,
2011.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --