NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APR 12 2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50147 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01808-CAB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALEJANDRO LIMON-LOPEZ, aka
Alejandro Lopez-Limon,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 8, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and DORSEY,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
Alejandro Limon-Lopez, a Mexican citizen, was deported in 2007 as an
alien present without permission. Although Limon-Lopez’s 2001 conviction for
corporal injury on a spouse gave the government a second basis for his deportation,
the government chose to proceed only on the present-without-permission charge
because it lacked clear documentary proof of the date of his conviction.
When Limon-Lopez was found in California seven years later, he moved to
dismiss his illegal-reentry indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), arguing that the
immigration judge (“IJ”) violated his due process rights by not advising him that
he was apparently eligible for voluntary departure. The district judge denied the
motion, and Limon-Lopez appeals. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.
To successfully challenge a deportation order based on an IJ’s failure to
inform an alien of his apparent eligibility for voluntary departure instead of
removal, the defendant must show that (1) the IJ’s failure violated his due process
rights and (2) he suffered prejudice as a result. United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d
1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A]n alien who is statutorily barred from obtaining
relief from removal cannot be prejudiced by an IJ’s failure to inform him about the
possibility of applying for [that] relief . . . even if the government does not
introduce noticeable documentation of the alien’s” disqualifying conviction before
the IJ. United States v. Bustos-Ochoa, 704 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2012) (per
2
curiam). Because Limon-Lopez’s corporal-injury-on-a-spouse conviction
disqualified him from obtaining a voluntary departure, he was not prejudiced by
the IJ’s failure to inform him that he was eligible for that relief.
1 AFFIRMED.
3