FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFONSO ESCOTO-RODRIGUEZ, No. 13-70949
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-043-757
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Escoto-Rodriguez, 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”) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Escoto-Rodriguez’ contention that the IJ violated due process, by allegedly
misstating the amount of time Escoto-Rodriguez would have to remain outside the
United States for consular processing, fails for lack of prejudice. The BIA
conducted a de novo review and concluded that, even if the IJ had erred in
estimating the time for consular processing, the record did not establish the
requisite hardship for a grant of cancellation of removal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must
show error and prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-70949