FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR HUGO AGUILAR- No. 06-74861
VILLALVAZO,
Agency No. A092-472-048
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Victor Hugo Aguilar-Villalvazo, 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”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law,
*
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).
Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Aguilar-Villalvazo’s contention that his conviction for violating California
Health and Safety Code § 11352(a) is overbroad for the purpose of establishing
removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) because it prohibits solicitation to
commit a controlled substance related offense is unavailing. See Mielewczyk v.
Holder, 575 F.3d 992, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to review
Aguilar-Villalvazo’s contention that his conviction is overbroad because California
law prohibits the possession of controlled substances not covered by the federal
Controlled Substances Act as Aguilar-Villalvazo did not exhaust this argument
before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation
of removal. See Romero–Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890-92 (9th Cir. 2003).
Aguilar-Villalvazo’s contention that the IJ’s alleged bias violated due process fails
because he has not demonstrated prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 06-74861