CARLOS SALAZAR-HOLGUIN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72038 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS SALAZAR-HOLGUIN, Petitioner, No. 14-72038 Agency No. A019-842-333 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Carlos Salazar-Holguin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We review de novo claims of due * 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). process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not err in rejecting Salazar-Holguin’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to demonstrate prejudice, where Salazar-Holguin has failed to establish that he has any plausible grounds for asylum, adjustment of status, or any other form of relief from removal. See Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2008) (to establish prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficient performance, a petitioner must “show plausible grounds for relief” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Salazar-Holguin’s remaining contentions concerning former counsel’s performance or his noncompliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-72038

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.