well within its discretion in denying Oliveras’ clearly untimely motion. 2. Due Process Violation Oliveras alternatively argues that her due process right to present her claim on the merits was violated by the ineffective assistance of her first attorney. While aliens in a deportation proceeding do not have a constitutional right to counsel, they are entitled to due process in such a proceeding. See Saakian, 252 F.3d at 24. “Ineffective assistance of counsel in a deportation proceeding is a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment if the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Rodríguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1226 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation mark omitted); accord Guerrero-Santana, 499 F.3d at 93 (<HOLDING>)(citing Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d 10, 13 (1st
recognizing claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel usually must be raised in collateral proceeding holding that knowing reliance upon the advice of a nonattorney cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding holding that ineffective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding may constitute a denial of due process if and to the extent that the proceeding is thereby rendered fundamentally unfair holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that under oregon law a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in the initial habeas proceeding