FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTO VILLAREAL-VALDEZ, No. 10-71059
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-380-221
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Alberto Villareal-Valdez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s
("IJ") entry of a final order of removal. We deny the petition.
*
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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s finding that there is
"reason to believe" that Petitioner "is or has been an illicit trafficker" in a
controlled substance. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i); see Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft,
368 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that we review for substantial
evidence). Petitioner admits that he gave an undercover officer a bag of marijuana
and received $20 from the officer. The BIA and IJ were not required to believe
that his possession and transfer were innocent. "While a generous fact-finder
might have believed [Petitioner’s] version of the facts, both the BIA and IJ were
clearly within reason on these facts and circumstances to conclude otherwise."
Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000).
2. Petitioner’s due process argument fails because he cannot show
prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) ("To prevail on a
due process challenge to deportation proceedings, Lata must show error and
substantial prejudice.").
Petition DENIED.
2