Jose Villanueva-Zaldana v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 424 F. App'x 669 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           MAR 25 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSE A. VILLANUEVA-ZALDANA,                      No. 08-72840
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A014-145-167
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 8, 2011 **
    Before:        FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Jose A. Villanueva-Zaldana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
    from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deportation order and denying his motion to
    remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under
    *
    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).
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,
    Mohammed v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
    and grant in part the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
    The BIA did not err in finding that Villanueva-Zaldana’s former counsel had
    not acted ineffectively by failing to submit the plea hearing transcript to the IJ. See
    
    id. at 793
     (a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel failed to perform with
    sufficient competence to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).
    Because the BIA failed to address Villanueva-Zaldana’s contentions, raised
    in his brief on appeal to the BIA, that the IJ’s bias violated due process and that the
    IJ erred in failing to adjudicate his adjustment of status application, we grant the
    petition for review and remand to the agency to consider these contentions in the
    first instance. See Brezilien v. Holder, 
    569 F.3d 403
    , 412 (9th Cir. 2009) (BIA is
    not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner).
    Each party shall bear its own costs in this petition for review.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
    REMANDED.
    2                                     08-72840
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-16996

Citation Numbers: 424 F. App'x 669

Filed Date: 3/25/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023