NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROGELIO MENDEZ HERNANDEZ, No. 16-73099 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-975-972 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 10, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: N. R. SMITH and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Rogelio Mendez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”), which decision denied his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review alleged due process violations in deportation proceedings de novo. See Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2000). 1. Petitioner contends on appeal that the IJ violated his due process rights by, inter alia, failing to explain the relevant hearing procedures necessary for him to effectively present his case, and not inquiring into forms of relief, such as asylum, for which he may have been eligible. The BIA rejected these contentions. We agree with the BIA, for the reasons that follow. The Fifth Amendment “guarantees that individuals subject to deportation proceedings receive due process,” which “requires that an alien receive a full and fair hearing.” Jacinto, 208 F.3d at 727. Because aliens appearing pro se may be unfamiliar with immigration law, “it is the IJ’s duty to fully develop the record,” to “adequately explain the hearing procedures,” and to “conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts.” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted). However, “[a]n alien has no blanket right to be advised of the possibility of asylum or other relief,” except where the facts at hand reasonably reflect the alien’s apparent eligibility for the particular form 2 of relief at issue. Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 2008); see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(1). Due process analysis vis-à-vis the IJ’s explanation of the relevant procedures is guided in part by the IJ’s responsiveness “to the particular circumstances of the case.” Agyeman, 296 F.3d at 884. Here, the IJ adequately explained the relevant procedures. The IJ informed petitioner that he had a right to self-representation; that he would have nearly two months to find a replacement attorney after the withdrawal of his first lawyer, and to this end should refer to a list of legal aid lawyers (provided by the IJ); that his children need not ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals