FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD DE JESUS PAULINO, No. 08-73709
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-800-517
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Ronald De Jesus Paulino, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584
*
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).
F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
This case was last before this court in 2007, when we granted the
government’s motion to remand for the BIA to address Paulino’s contention that
the BIA improperly considered extra-record evidence, submitted by the
government, in its March 7, 2003, order. Paulino then requested that the BIA
remand to the IJ. In its July 29, 2008, order, the BIA determined that remand was
not warranted because the extra-record evidence had added “nothing materially
new” and the BIA had not considered the extra-record evidence.
Contrary to Paulino’s contention, the BIA’s March 7, 2003, order did not
violate his due process rights. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.
2000) (in order to prevail on a due process claim, alien must demonstrate that the
challenged proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented
from reasonably presenting his case). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying Paulino’s motion for remand. See Movsisian, 395 F.3d at
1098 (“The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or
contrary to the law.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-73709