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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 05 2011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
TOMAS MIGUEL CRUZ-BRAVO, No. 07-75101
Petitioner, Agency No. A090-335-533
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.
Tomas Miguel Cruz-Bravo, 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. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims.
*
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). We deny the petition for
review.
Cruz-Bravo does not challenge the agency’s determinations that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1991 conviction for
second degree rape in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes § 163.365 and
ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed
1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground
of inadmissibility. We therefore need not address the agency’s alternative holding
denying his application for section 212(c) relief as a matter of discretion.
Because Cruz-Bravo is removable by reason of having committed an
aggravated felony, we lack jurisdiction to review his remaining contentions except
to the extent they may be construed as “constitutional claims or questions of law.”
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D).
Construed as due process challenges, Cruz-Bravo’s remaining contentions
are unavailing. While the BIA is “not free to ignore arguments raised by a
petitioner,” Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005), we are
unpersuaded in this specific instance by Cruz-Bravo’s contention that the BIA’s
failure to directly address his suggestion that it summarily dismiss the
government’s appeal rises to the level of due process error. See Colmenar v. INS,
2 07-75101
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring a showing that the proceedings were
“so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting
his case” to prevail on a due process challenge). Cruz-Bravo’s contention that the
IJ violated due process by denying his continuance request is equally unpersuasive
as he is unable to demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring a showing of substantial prejudice for a petitioner to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-75101