Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. INS No. A20-384-821
Before: Browning, Kozinski and Rymer, Circuit Judges.
Miklos Csoka Laszlo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (B.I.A.) order dismissing his appeal as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), and we affirm.
Immigration and Naturalization Service regulations require that an appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision to the B.I.A. must be taken within 10 days. 8 C.F.R. § 242.21. The time to file a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Hernandez-Rivera v. I.N.S., 630 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir. 1980). The Immigration Judge rendered his decision on June 2, 1992. Petitioner filed his notice of appeal to the B.I.A. on December 29, 1992, well in excess of ten days from the Immigration Judge's decision. Consequently, the notice of appeal was untimely, and the B.I.A. properly dismissed his appeal.*fn1
Because this court finds that petitioner's notice of appeal to the B.I.A. was untimely, and that the B.I.A. properly dismissed his appeal, we shall address petitioner's remaining claims in a summary fashion.
Petitioner contends that this court should review the constitutionality of convictions used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to support his deportation. We reject this contention. A conviction may not be collaterally challenged in the context of a deportation proceeding.*fn2 See Avila-Murrieta v. I.N.S., 762 F.2d 733, 736 (9th Cir. 1985).
Petitioner contends that a plea entered pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), is similar to a plea of nolo contendere and is therefore inadmissable in a deportation proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. We reject this contention. See Ruis-Rubio v. I.N.S., 380 F.2d 29, 29 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944 (1967); Tseung Chu v. Cornell, 247 F.2d 929 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 892 (1957).
Petitioner contends that he had a right to appointed counsel in a deportation proceeding, or in the alternative, to be advised of his rights under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B).*fn3 We reject these contentions. There is no right to appointed counsel at government expense in a deportation proceeding.*fn4 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2); Castro-O'Ryan v. I.N.S., 847 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1988); Van Diijk v. I.N.S., 440 F.2d 798, 799 (9th Cir. 1971). The Immigration Judge informed petitioner in detail of his rights under 8 U.S.C. § 212(c). Petitioner presented no evidence during the deportation proceeding regarding family members who are citizens.*fn5 Therefore, there was no reason for the Immigration Judge to inform petitioner of his "apparent eligibility" for certain remedial provisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i); 8 C.F.R. § 242.17(a); United States v. Barraza-Leon, 575 F.2d. 218, 212-22 (9th Cir. 1978).
Because the B.I.A. properly dismissed petitioner's appeal as untimely, and because the petition for review raises no meritorious issues, the B.I.A. order dismissing the appeal is affirmed.