Douglas Flores-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 422 F. App'x 654 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS FLORES-GONZALEZ, No. 08-70911
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-384-860
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Flores-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order both dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, and denying his claim for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for
substantial evidence factual findings. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th
Cir. 1995). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Flores-Gonzalez’s claim that the IJ erred by failing to address
withholding of removal because any error committed by the IJ was rendered
harmless by the BIA’s application of the correct legal standard. See id. at 1430.
Flores-Gonzalez’s contention that the BIA improperly concluded that the IJ had
ruled on withholding of removal is belied by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to review Flores-Gonzalez’s claim that the IJ failed to
address his CAT claim because he did not exhaust it before the agency. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, because
Flores-Gonzales did not adequately raise a CAT claim in his notice of appeal to the
BIA, the BIA did not err by not addressing it.
Flores-Gonzalez’s contention that there is no record of the arguments he
raised to the BIA is belied by the record, given the arguments he raised in the
notice of appeal.
Finally, we reject Flores-Gonzalez’s contention that the agency erred
because it did not make a verbatim transcript of proceedings. After identifying a
problem with the tape recording, the IJ read her notes into the record and provided
2 08-70911
Flores-Gonzalez and his counsel an opportunity to make corrections. Both parties
agreed this accurately reflected and would be regarded as the testimony, and
Flores-Gonzalez has not demonstrated how this affected the outcome of his
proceedings. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); United States v. Calles-Pineda,
627 F.2d 976, 977 (9th Cir. 1980) (violation of INS regulation requiring verbatim
recording of deportation hearings will not invalidate deportation unless the
violation prejudiced a protected interest).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70911