JAIME RODRIGUEZ-SIERRA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73688 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIME ANTONIO RODRIGUEZSIERRA, a.k.a. Jaime Rodriguez, a.k.a. Jaime Anthony Rodriguez, a.k.a. Jaimes Rodriquez, No. 11-73688 Agency No. A090-183-626 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Jaime Antonio Rodriguez-Sierra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal * 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). order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Rodriguez-Sierra does not challenge the agency s finding that he is removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R), and as an alien convicted of a controlled substance violation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). His removability on these grounds limits our jurisdiction to constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). The agency did not err in determining that Rodriguez-Sierra did not establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where he did not meet the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (9th Cir. 2004). Rodriguez-Sierra s contention concerning a hardship waiver does not raise a colorable question of law sufficient to invoke the court s jurisdiction. We lack jurisdiction over Rodriguez-Sierra s remaining contentions because he failed to raise them before the BIA, and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2 11-73688 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 11-73688
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.
