NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ANDRES RAMON FRANCISCO- No. 12-70298
SALVADOR,
Agency No. A095-722-153
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 3, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District
Judge.**
Andres Ramon Francisco-Salvador petitions for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision finding Francisco-Salvador removable. The BIA
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
rejected Francisco-Salvador’s argument that his due process rights were violated,
finding that Francisco-Salvador had not demonstrated error and could not
demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged procedural errors in his
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
de novo “[w]hether an immigration proceeding violates an alien’s due process
rights,” Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009), and deny the
petition.
Francisco-Salvador’s claim that his statutory right to counsel under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(4)(A) was violated in the removal proceedings fails because Francisco-
Salvador “knowingly and voluntarily” waived that right when he appeared at the
hearing without an attorney after the immigration judge had continued the
proceedings to allow him to obtain counsel. See Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008).
Francisco-Salvador’s other claims of procedural error also fail to establish
due process violations because he has not demonstrated prejudice. See Morales-
Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Francisco-
Salvador’s arguments regarding the immigration judge’s failure to inform him of
the government’s burden of proof, sua sponte amendment of the notice to appear,
and failure to apprise him of all possible avenues for relief, indicate only that the
2
proceedings would have been different, but do not present a plausible scenario in
which the outcome of those proceedings would have been different. See id. (“To
show prejudice, [the petitioner] must present ‘plausible scenarios in which the
outcome of the proceedings would have been different’ if a more elaborate process
were provided.” (quoting Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998))).
We also decline Francisco-Salvador’s request to remand to the BIA in light
of Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012). Because Francisco-Salvador
did not request administrative closure, Avetisyan is irrelevant to the outcome of his
removal proceedings or BIA appeal.
PETITION DENIED.
3