Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0193-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francisco Adan LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73833
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 21, 2016
    Francisco Adan Lopez, Pro Se.
    Patricia Bruckner, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—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: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Adan Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Lopez s due process challenges to the IJ’s conduct of the removal proceedings are without merit. Lopez was granted a full and fair hearing, and he has not shown that the IJ failed to comply with her duty to inform him of available relief from removal, where Lopez has not shown “apparent eligibility” for any relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice). • ■

Lopez’s contention that the IJ sustained the charge of removability based solely on the admissions of a pro se petitioner, with no independent analysis of the conviction records, is contradicted by the record.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lopez’s contention regarding hardship.

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