FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 24 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILOVAN RAJKO UROSEVIC, AKA No. 13-73047
Urosevic Milovan, AKA Andrija Urosevic,
AKA Milovan Urosevic, Agency No. A036-252-101
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 17, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Milovan Urosevic petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252, to review the claim of due process violations, and do so de novo.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for
review.
Urosevic’s constitutional argument is that the IJ deprived him of due process
because the IJ did not give him a full and fair hearing and was biased against him.
See Reyes–Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003). The record
does not reflect that the IJ was biased, and Urosevic fails to demonstrate prejudice.
See Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2012) (requiring prejudice
for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). The IJ did not err in admitting
and considering evidence of Urosevic’s arrests. Paredes–Urrestarazu v. INS, 36
F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir. 1994).
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED.
2