Maria Cano Iribe v. Jefferson Sessions , 677 F. App'x 381 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEB 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MARIA CANO IRIBE, No. 13-72388
Petitioner, Agency No. A090-054-115
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Cano Iribe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision finding her removable and ineligible for relief from removal in the
*
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).
form of either cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (“Act”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), or a waiver of deportability
under former section 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994). Because Iribe
is removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), our
jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). Assuming that her claim is “colorable,” she
nevertheless failed to demonstrate that prior counsels’ conduct resulted in
prejudice, so we agree with the BIA that her ineffective assistance of counsel claim
fails. See Rojas–Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner
must demonstrate prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim). Iribe cannot demonstrate the required prejudice because proof that she had
committed the two alien smuggling offenses and the drug offense was unavoidable
no matter what her lawyers might have done, and there was no form of relief that
could have obtained a waiver of all of her grounds of removability. See Sanchez v.
Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (affirmative acts
furthering smuggling scheme elevates an alien’s participation above “a passive
participant”); Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 2007)
(noting that section 1229b(c)(6) “prohibits an alien from receiving both waiver of
deportation and cancellation of removal”). To the extent Iribe argues that the
2
Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding her removable, we lack jurisdiction
over her claim because our jurisdiction is limited to “constitutional claims or
questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.
3