Salazar-Torres v. Gonzales , 122 F. App'x 794 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT March 10, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
04-60261
Summary Calendar
JORGE SALAZAR-TORRES,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A78 315 665
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jorge Salazar-Torres, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions,
pro se, for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order, which
affirmed the immigration judge’s decision he is removable and
dismissed his appeal. Salazar contends he was denied due process
due to: (1) insufficient time to obtain counsel for his removal
hearing; and (2) inability to present evidence in support of his
asylum claim. We review de novo Salazar’s claim of a due process
violation in immigration proceedings. Anwar v. INS, 116 F.2d 140,
144 (5th Cir. 1997)
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Salazar had almost two months between service of the Notice to
Appear and his final removal hearing to obtain counsel. Noticing
Salazar was without counsel at his first two appearances, the IJ
informed him he had a right to obtain counsel and, on both
occasions, granted him a continuance. For example, this court has
deemed one month sufficient time for a detained alien to find
counsel. See Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 599 (5th Cir. 1993).
Salazar has not shown a due process violation. In the alternative,
Salazar has not demonstrated any prejudice from his lack of
representation. There is no evidence there were any grounds for
relief available to Salazar at the time of his removal hearing.
See Anwar, 116 F.3d at 144; Prichard-Ciriza v. INS, 978 F.2d 219,
222 (5th Cir. 1992).
Salazar complains he was never informed of his right to apply
for political asylum. Among other things, “an IJ does not have an
obligation to explain the asylum procedures unless the immigrant
expresses some reluctance to return to his homeland.” Ogbemudia,
988 F.2d at 599. In any event, Salazar expressed no objection to
returning to Peru. “[T]o the contrary, he specifically designated
that country when asked.” Id.PETITION DENIED
2