FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON ALBERTO LUCERO LOPEZ, No. 15-70349
AKA Ramon Espinoza-Gomez,
Agency No. A206-410-323
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Alberto Lucero Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
violations. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Lucero Lopez’ contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by
allegedly failing to sufficiently inquire about whether he had a fear of returning to
Guatemala fails, where IJ sufficiently inquired about Lucero Lopez’ potential fear
of return to Guatemala and Lucero Lopez indicated that he had none. See id. at
620-21 (“The BIA’s decision will be reversed on due process grounds if (1) the
proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from
reasonably presenting his case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which
means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged
violation.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lucero Lopez’ unexhausted contentions that
he was deprived of his right against self-incrimination, his right to counsel, and his
right to a neutral judge. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
(the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-70349