Case ID: f-appx_490/html/0926-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gilberto ACOSTA-OLIVARRIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70902.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, GA, for Petitioner.
    Allison Frayer, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gilberto Acosta-Olivarria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations and questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that Acosta-Olivarria is ineligible to adjust status because he is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) for having accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States and then reentering without admission. See Garfias-Rodri-guez v. Holder, No. 09-72603, 702 F.3d 504, 2012 WL 5077137, at *7 (9th Cir. Oct.19, 2012) (en banc) (aliens who are inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) are not eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)).

Acosta-Olivarria’s due process contentions therefore fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice 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.