Case ID: f-appx_244/html/0772-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jairo Vosbeli VASQUEZ-GONZALES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76899.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 14, 2007.
    Stuart I. Folinsky, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Arthur F. Norton, U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jairo Vosbeli Vasquez-Gonzales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Vasquez-Gonzales contends that the BIA violated due process by mailing his briefing schedule and transcript to an incorrect zip code and then deciding his appeal without briefing. Vasquez-Gonzales’ contention is unavailing because he withdrew his asylum application before appealing to the BIA and he has not shown any other plausible ground for relief. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826-28 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that petitioner was not prejudiced because there were no plausible grounds for relief at the time of his appeal to the BIA).

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