Gilberto Acosta-Olivarria v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GILBERTO ACOSTA-OLIVARRIA, No. 10-70902 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-657-188 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2012** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Gilberto Acosta-Olivarria, 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 claims of constitutional violations and questions of * 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). law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA correctly concluded that Acosta-Olivarria is ineligible to adjust status because he is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) for having accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States and then reentering without admission. See Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 09-72603, 2012 WL 5077137, at *7 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2012) (en banc) (aliens who are inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) are not eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)). Acosta-Olivarria’s due process contentions therefore fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-70902