FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PABLO GOMEZ ORTEGA, No. 08-73821
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-525-692
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Gomez Ortega, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Ibarra-Flores
v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo constitutional
claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Gomez Ortega’s challenge to his June 1998
expedited removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A); Avendano-Ramirez v.
Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-819 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez
Ortega’s expedited removal order prevented him from accruing the continuous
physical presence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2007) (an
expedited removal order interrupts accrual of continuous physical presence for
purposes of cancellation).
Gomez Ortega’s due process claims fail because he cannot demonstrate
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); see also Espinoza v.
INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995) (presuming reliability of authenticated
immigration forms).
2 08-73821
Gomez Ortega’s equal protection claim is foreclosed. See Juarez-Ramos,
485 F.3d at 512.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 08-73821