Alberto Marin-Arizpe v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 659 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTO MARIN-ARIZPE, No. 14-73326
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-278-811
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Marin-Arizpe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 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).
§ 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d
1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.
Marin-Arizpe does not challenge the determination that his California Penal
Code § 288(a) conviction is an aggravated felony that renders him removable. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an
issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). This court’s jurisdiction is
therefore limited to reviewing colorable questions of law or constitutional claims.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D).
Marin-Arizpe’s contention that the IJ violated his due process right to a full
and fair hearing lacks merit, where the IJ questioned Marin-Arizpe to discover if
there were any forms of relief available to him and determined there were not, and
where Marin-Arizpe has not established prima facie eligibility for protection under
the Convention Against Torture. See Vilchez, 682 F.3d at 1199 (“A due process
violation occurs where (1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the
alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and (2) the alien
demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have
been affected by the alleged violation.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73326