FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ERNESTO LUNA-ACEVEDO, No. 09-70545
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-205-624
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ernesto Luna-Acevedo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order finding that he knowingly participated in alien
smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(i)(E)(i). Our jurisdiction is governed
*
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).
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Luna-Acevedo’s due process rights were not violated by admission of the
Form I-213 because the form was probative and its admission was not
fundamentally unfair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995)
(noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a deportation proceeding]
is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair”).
Luna-Acevedo’s due process rights were not violated when he was not given
an opportunity to question the preparer of the I-213, because he failed to produce
probative evidence casting doubt on the reliability of the form. See id.
We lack jurisdiction to review Luna-Acevedo’s unexhausted contention
regarding the government’s alleged 8 C.F.R § 287.3(a) violation and related
hearsay contention. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-70545