Opinion
Nos. 06-70036.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 30, 2009.
Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Edward A. Olsen, Esq., USSF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A079-570-398, A079-570-399, A079-570-400.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jose Graciano Rodriguez-Canchola, Maria Celia Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), and their daughter Maria Alejandra Rodriguez-Barcena, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeals from an immigration judge's orders denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's continuous physical presence and good moral character determinations, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 851-52 (9th Cir. 2004); Bernal v. INS, 154 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998), we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Rodriguez's expedited removal order prevented her from accruing the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511-12 (9th Cir. 2007) (an expedited removal order interrupts accrual of continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Rodriguez-Canchola provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, thereby rendering him unable to establish the requisite good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1229c(b)(1)(B); see also Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
We agree with the BIA that the performance of petitioners' former attorney did not result in prejudice, and thus their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-90.