FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 8, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JOSE DE JESUS PALACIOS-YANEZ,
Petitioner,
No. 11-9545
v. (Petition for Review)
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Jose de Jesus Palacios-Yanez (Palacios) petitions pro se for review of a final order
of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Palacios challenges the
immigration judge’s (IJ) acceptance of his agreement to waive an appeal to the BIA in
exchange for 120 days’ pre-conclusion voluntary departure. An IJ may grant a
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
maximum of 120 days’ voluntary departure to an alien prior to the completion of
removal proceedings if the alien meets certain conditions, including withdrawing all
requests for relief and waiving appeal of all issues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1);
8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(1)(i).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (2)(D),
and we deny Palacios’s petition for review.2
Background
Palacios, a native of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in
1995. He has two children who are United States citizens, one born in 2006 and the
other in 2008. He was arrested in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on April 30, 2008, for driving
without a license and following too closely. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) instituted removal proceedings against Palacios, as an alien present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
Appearing with counsel at the IJ hearing, Palacios conceded his removability and
requested cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1). During the hearing, after learning the nature of Palacios’s hardship
evidence, the IJ asked whether he would like to consider pre-conclusion voluntary
departure. Palacios and his attorney requested and received a brief recess to discuss
pre-conclusion voluntary departure.
1
In contrast, voluntary departure granted at the conclusion of the proceedings is
limited to 60 days. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2).
2
This appeal was transferred from the Ninth Circuit.
-2-
Following the recess, Palacios, through counsel, announced that he and
counsel for DHS had reached an agreement whereby Palacios would withdraw all
requests for relief and would waive his right to appeal the IJ’s decision. In exchange,
DHS agreed not to oppose voluntary departure for a period of 120 days. The IJ then
reiterated the conditions:
(1) [Palacios] withdrawing with prejudice, any outstanding
requests for relief; (2) [Palacios] waiving the right to appeal the
decision of the Court today; (3) [Palacios] will be granted
voluntary departure for 120 days, which is the maximum allowed
under the law, which means he must depart on or before
December 8, 2009, which is a Tuesday.
Admin. R. at 74. After explaining the penalties for failure to depart voluntarily, the
IJ asked if Palacios accepted each of those conditions. On counsel’s request, the
conditions were translated for Palacios into Spanish. Thereafter, the following
exchange occurred between the IJ and Palacios:
[IJ]: Now, Mr. Palacios, do you understand what I have explained to
you?
[Palacios]: Yes.
[IJ]: And, sir, do you voluntarily accept each of these conditions in
exchange for your grant of voluntary departure?
[Palacios]: Yes, I do accept.
[IJ]: And, Mr. Palacios, do you have any questions for the Court at this
time before this hearing is adjourned?
[Palacios]: No, just say that I’m surprised. This, this, decision caught
me by surprise.
-3-
Id. at 76. Palacios’s counsel then interceded to inquire what his client meant by
catching him by surprise, and another brief recess ensued. Following the recess,
Palacios’s counsel stated that he and his associate had spoken with Palacios in
Spanish and both attorneys were “satisfied that this is [Palacios’s] free and voluntary
act.” Id. at 77. Accordingly, the IJ entered a final decision granting Palacios
pre-conclusion voluntary departure for 120 days and stating that both sides had
waived their right to appeal.
Palacios timely filed a pro se petition for review with the BIA. Citing
Palacios’s appeal waiver, the BIA dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a
single-member decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G) (providing that a single BIA
member “may summarily dismiss any appeal” where the appeal is “barred by an
affirmative waiver of the right of appeal that is clear on the record”). Palacios now seeks
review by this court. He asserts that his agreement to waive his right to appeal was the
result of ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, Palacios makes several arguments
that he is entitled to cancellation of removal based on hardship to his family. Because we
conclude that his appeal waiver was valid, we do not consider Palacios’s claims that he
was eligible for cancellation of removal.
Standards of Review
We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for
substantial evidence. Witjaksono v. Holder, 573 F.3d 968, 977 (10th Cir. 2009).
Thus, we must “look to the record for ‘substantial evidence’ supporting the agency’s
-4-
decision: [O]ur duty is to guarantee that factual determinations are supported by
reasonable, substantial and probative evidence considering the record as a whole.”
Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “The agency’s findings of fact are conclusive unless the record
demonstrates that ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.’” Ismaiel v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 1198, 1204 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (further quotation omitted)).
Discussion
“The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law is applicable to
aliens in removal proceedings. Even so, an alien’s due process rights are subject to
waiver.” Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1128-29 (10th Cir. 2006) (citations
omitted). To be valid, the waiver of the right to appeal to the BIA must be knowing
and voluntary. See United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 840 (1987)
(holding that the respondents’ waivers of the right to appeal their deportation orders
“were not considered or intelligent,” so the respondents were improperly deprived of
judicial review of those orders).
The sole issue presented on appeal is whether Palacios’s waiver of his right to
appeal was knowing and voluntary. Palacios does not challenge the pivotal evidence
establishing that the IJ informed him of the conditions for receiving 120 days’
voluntary departure and that he agreed to those conditions, including waiving his
right to appeal. Rather, he now contends that his attorney provided ineffective
-5-
assistance because he withdrew the application for cancellation of removal without
Palacios’s consent.
An alien “can state a Fifth Amendment violation if he proves that retained
counsel was ineffective and, as a result, he was denied a fundamentally fair
proceeding.” Tang v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1192, 1196 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (brackets omitted). Palacios’s ineffective-counsel claim is
contrary to the record evidence demonstrating his understanding and acceptance of
the terms for pre-conclusion voluntary departure, terms that were explained to him in
both English and Spanish. In addition, when Palacios expressed surprise at this
development, after further consultation with Palacios, his counsel clarified that
Palacios understood and accepted the conditions, which included withdrawing all
requests for relief and waiving appeal. Accordingly, because the BIA’s conclusion
does not compel a contrary result, we affirm the BIA’s determination that Palacios’s
appeal waiver is valid and enforceable.3
3
Because we conclude that Palacios has failed to show that his attorney’s
actions denied him fundamental fairness, we do not address whether he has satisfied
the BIA’s requirements for bringing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See
Tang, 354 F.3d at 1196.
-6-
Conclusion
Palacios’s petition for review is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Chief Judge
-7-