United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60748
Summary Calendar
MIRIAM YOLANDA MALDONADO-ALVARADO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A74 676 068
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miriam Yolanda Maldonado-Alvarez (Maldonado) appeals a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing a
motion to reopen her application for asylum and suspension of
deportation. At a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ),
Maldonado voluntarily withdrew her application for asylum and
suspension of deportation and waived her rights to appeal in
exchange for the privilege of voluntary departure.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-60748
-2-
Maldonado does not dispute that her motion to reopen her
application was filed after the expiration of the applicable
statute of limitations, but she argues that the Immigration Judge
should have reopened the proceedings sua sponte in order to
prevent injustice because she withdrew her application in
reliance on erroneous advice from her former attorney.
Our review of the BIA’s decision not to reopen a deportation
proceeding is “highly deferential,” and motions to reopen
deportation proceedings are “disfavored.” Lara v. Trominski, 216
F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323
(1992).
There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in deportation
proceedings, but such proceedings must comply with constitutional
principles of procedural due process. Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252
F.3d 383, 385 n.2 (5th Cir. 2001). An alien’s right to
procedural due process is violated when counsel’s representation
at the deportation hearing is so deficient that the hearing is
fundamentally unfair and the alien suffers “substantial
prejudice” as a result. Id.
We AFFIRM because Maldonado has failed to establish that she
was prejudiced by the withdrawal of her application for
suspension of deportation. See Hernandez-Cordero v. INS, 819
F.2d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.