NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ-CARAPIA, No. 07-74921
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-927-907
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
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.
Guillermo Hernandez-Carapia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims in immigration
proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not violate due process in dismissing Hernandez-Carapia’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where Hernandez-Carapia failed to comply
with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA
1988), and the face of the record does not show a “clear and obvious case of
ineffective assistance of counsel.” Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th
Cir. 2000).
We lack jurisdiction over Hernandez-Carapia’s contentions regarding the
IJ’s denial of his last motion to continue, as he did not challenge that decision
before the BIA, where he addressed only an earlier continuance related to the
reinstatement of his first wife’s I-130 application. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469
F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 2006) (no jurisdiction over issues raised for the first time
on appeal to this court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 07-74921