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NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2012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