eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-07

Luis Perez-Soria v. Jefferson Sessions , 693 F. App'x 619 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 7 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALBERTO PEREZ-SORIA,                       No.    14-70733
Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-320-747
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before:      PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alberto Perez-Soria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Our jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
Perez-Soria contends he was denied due process as a result of being unable
to fully present his case due to his former counsel’s incompetence and IJ bias. We
lack jurisdiction to consider Perez-Soria’s contentions regarding his former
counsel. See Liu v. Waters,
    55 F.3d 421
    , 424 (9th Cir. 1995) (petitioner must first
exhaust ineffective assistance of counsel claim by raising it to the BIA). We reject
Perez-Soria’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to address the IJ’s preclusion
of his second witness because Perez-Soria did not raise this issue to the BIA.
Further, we reject Perez-Soria’s contention that the IJ violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS,
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); Halaim v. INS,
    358 F.3d 1128
    , 1137
(9th Cir. 2004) (IJ’s conduct did not deny petitioners due process). Perez-Soria
does not otherwise challenge the agency’s denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2                                    14-70733