Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0587-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paulino RIVAS-MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72433.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 12, 2012.
    Tamiko Moore, Esquire, Law Office of Tamiko O. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paulino Rivas-Miranda, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand to reapply for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivas-Miranda’s motion to remand where he failed to show eligibility for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i) (an alien who has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors in the United States is not eligible for TPS); Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2002) (ex-pungement of a misdemeanor California conviction does not eliminate the immigration consequences of the conviction). It follows that Rivas-Miranda’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.