FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCELO LUNA-MASTACHE, No. 10-73824
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-446-440
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Marcelo Luna-Mastache, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law, Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1086
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
Luna-Mastache contends that the government’s evidence of his alienage
should not have been admitted at his removal hearing because it was protected by
the confidentiality provision set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(c)(5)(A)(i). Contrary to
his contention, the BIA correctly concluded that the evidence was not protected
because it was drawn from Luna-Mastache’s employment verification documents,
and was not “information furnished by” Luna-Mastache in his legalization
application. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(c)(5)(A)(i); see also id. § 1101(a)(3) (“The term
‘alien’ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”).
Luna-Mastache’s contention that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) violates due
process and separation of powers by impinging on his fundamental right to family
unity is foreclosed by De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-73824