NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ISAIAS SUNUM,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73785 Agency No. A205

- 971

- 782

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 8, 2018

Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON, ** District Judge.
Carlos Isaias Sunum , a native and citizen of Guate mala , petitions for review
of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) final administrative removal
order . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)( 2 )(D)

. See Gomez

- Velazco

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

SEP 30 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

v. Sessions , 879 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2018) . Reviewing de novo , see Zuniga v.
Barr , 934 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 2019) , we deny the petition.
1. A removal order does not become final until, at the earliest, the time to seek administrative review of the order has passed. See Abdisalan v. Holder , 774 F.3d 517, 523 (9th C ir. 2015) (en banc). Sunum had “ 10 calendar days from
service of the Notice of Intent

. . . to file a response” in which he could, among other things, request withholding of removal thereby triggering further proceedings and opportunities for administrati ve review

. 8 C.F.R. § 238.1(c)(1) . Since Sunum was served with the notice of intent on October 31, 2016, the administrative removal order became final on November 10, 2016. His petition for review in this court, filed on November 29, 2016, was therefore timely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)

. 2. Sunum need not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to purely legal questions , which DHS could not have considered in the expedited proceedings at issue here

. See 8 C.F.R. § 238.1 ; Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he principle of exhaustion may exclude certain constitutional challenges that are not within the competence of administrative agencies to decide.”).
3. Sunum’s crime of conviction, California Penal Code section 245(a)(4), is categorically a crime of violence

. See United States v. Grajeda , 581 F.3d 1186,3

1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (“If the conviction is based on ‘force likely to produce great bodily injury,’ such force must necessarily go beyond the ‘least touc hing,’ and represents ‘actual force’ that is violent in nature.”); see also United States v. Vasquez

- Gonzalez , 901 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2018). Therefore, it is an aggravated felony that render s Sunum deportable

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
4. Even if Sunum suffered a due process violation, he fail s to show prejudice

— as is required to prevail. See Gomez

- Velazco , 879 F.3d at 993. Sunum admitted that he has no fear of persecution or torture should he be removed to Guatemala. Consequently, he is ineligible for relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. § § 208.31(c), 238.1(f)(3)

. PETITION DENIED.