Lucio Reyes Mazon v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCIO REYES MAZON, No. 09-70562
Petitioner, Agency No. A091-780-709
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lucio Reyes Mazon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
determinations, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 345 F.3d 824, 843 (9th Cir. 2003) and we
review de novo due process claims, Cano Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th
Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
We agree that Reyes Mazon has not met his burden to establish that he was
the beneficiary of an approved visa petition; a requirement for his application for
adjustment of status to proceed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(B); cf. Hernandez, 345
F.3d at 843.
Contrary to Reyes Mazon’s contention, the BIA properly concluded that the
IJ did not violate due process by not informing Reyes Mazon of his eligibility for a
Section 212(h) waiver, because the waiver was not applicable to the ground of
inadmissibility with which Reyes Mazon was charged. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h);
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding petitioner must
demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Reyes Mazon does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that he is
statutorily ineligible to show good moral character so that contention is waived.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70562