Jose Villarreal-Duran v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 18 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE VILLARREAL- No. 13-71962
DURAN,
Agency No. A073-374-090
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit
Judges.
Petitioner Jose Guadalupe Villarreal-Duran petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s
*
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).
decision finding him removable. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and
we deny the petition.
1. “[A]dmissions by an alien to facts alleged in [a Notice to Appear], and
concessions of removability, made in the 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c) ‘pleading stage’ of
removal proceedings may be relied on by an [Immigration Judge.]” Perez-Mejia v.
Holder, 663 F.3d 403, 410 (9th Cir. 2011). The IJ therefore properly relied on the
admissions and concessions that Villarreal’s counsel made when pleading, and the
IJ was not required to independently review Villarreal’s conviction documents.
2. Even assuming the IJ’s conduct denied Villarreal a full and fair hearing,
his due process claim fails because he did not establish prejudice. See Lata v.
I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process challenge requires both
error and substantial prejudice). The record indicates that Villarreal’s counsel was
prepared to admit the allegations in the Notice to Appear and concede Villarreal’s
removability even before his hearing began. Moreover, Villarreal does not contest
his conviction.
PETITION DENIED.