Oscar Rojas-Galvez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 623 F. App'x 511 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ROJAS-GALVEZ, No. 13-73362
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-563-284
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Rojas-Galvez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) final administrative removal
order finding Rojas-Galvez removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated
felony, after conducting an expedited removal proceeding pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1228(b). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
claims of due process violations. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.
2004). We deny the petition for review.
Rojas-Galvez does not challenge DHS’s finding that he is removable for
having been convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B).
Rojas-Galvez’s due process claims fail, where the record indicates he was
advised of his rights but refused to sign the Form I-851, Notice of Intent to Issue a
Final Administrative Order, see Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir.
2007) (applying a presumption of regularity regarding the official acts of public
officers), and where he is statutorily barred from adjustment of status, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1228(b)(5) (“No alien described in this section [pertaining to the expedited
removal of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies] shall be eligible for any relief
from removal that the Attorney General may grant in the Attorney General’s
discretion.”); 8 U.S.C.§ 1255(a) (adjustment of status is discretionary); see also
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73362