FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALBERTO COREAS-GUILLEN, No. 08-72338
a.k.a. Jose Alberto Coreas, a.k.a. Jose
Alberto Cuillen, Agency No. A075-576-990
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alberto Coreas-Guillen, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
*
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).
withholding of removal and request for a waiver of inadmissibility under section
212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law
and review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny
Coreas-Guillen’s request for a 212(h) waiver. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mejia
v. Gonzalez, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). Coreas-Guillen’s contentions that
the BIA ignored its own precedent and applied an incorrect legal standard are not
supported by the record and do not amount to colorable legal or constitutional
claims over which we have jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
975, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
because Coreas-Guillen failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
persecuted if returned to El Salvador. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018
(9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative).
2 08-72338
Finally, the record does not support Coreas-Guillen’s contention that he was
deprived of a full and fair hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 08-72338