N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALFR E DO JIM ENEZ GAR C IA,

Pe t i tione r,

v. JEFFR EY A. R OSEN, Ac ting Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-72455 Age n c y No. A093-417-695

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2020 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : B ER

Z ON a nd M ILLER , C irc u it Judge s, a nd GLEASON, ** Distric t

Judge

. Pe titione r Alfre d o Jim e ne z Gar ci a p e titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of I m m i g r a tion A ppe a ls (“ B IA” )’ s dism issa l of his a ppe a l from the im

m igra tion judg e (“ IJ” )’ s de n ia l of a dm inistra tive c losure

. The B IA dism isse d his a ppe a l a s m o o t in light of the Attorne y Ge ne ra l’ s inte rve ning de c i sion in M atte r of C astro-Tum , whic h 

# FIL ED

DEC 31 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Sha ron L. Gle a son, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa tion.he ld tha t ne ithe r the B IA nor IJs ha ve ge ne ra l a uthority to a dm inistra

tiv el y c lose proc e e dings. 27 I

. & N

. De c . 271, 2 74, 293 (A.G. 2018). Pe titione r c onte nds that Ca s t ro - T u m viola te s due proc e ss a nd is v oid a s a m a tte r of la

w; he m a inta i ns that in

a ssigning to him se lf a nd d e c iding C astro-Tum , form e r Attorne y Ge ne ra l Se ssions wa s i m prope rly m otiva

te d by his pe rsona l bia s a ga i nst u ndoc um e nte d a lie ns. 1 W e h av e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition.

“ W e re v ie w de novo the B IA’ s d e te rm ina tion of pure ly le ga l qu es t i o n s a n d

c la im s of due proc e s s viola t ions in im

m igra tion proc e e dings.” Gonzale z-C arav e o v . Se ssions , 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th C ir. 2018). “ A ne utra l j udge is one of the m ost ba sic due proc e ss prote c t ions.” Re y e s-Me le nde

z v . INS , 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th C ir. 2003) (quoting C

astro-C orte z v . IN S , 239 F.3d 1 037, 1049 (9th C ir. 2 001)). Howe ve r,

“ [a ] s a pre dic a te to obta ining re lie f for a viola tion of p roc e dura l due proc e ss rights in im m igra tion proc e e dings, a

n a lie n m ust show tha

t the v iola tion pre j udic e d him .” Id.

1 In his re p l y

brie f, pe titione r a rgue s tha t this C ourt should a d o pt the Fourth C irc uit’ s re a soning in Rome ro v . Barr , whic h issue d a fte r he file d his ope ning brie f a nd he ld tha

t fe de ra l re gula

tions una m biguously c onfe r upon IJs a

nd the B IA the ge ne ra l a u thority to a dm inistra

t ive ly c lose c a se s. 937 F.3d 282, 297 (4th C ir. 2019). W e de c line to c onside r in this c a se whe the r C astro-Tum is substa

ntive ly c orre c t. Pe titione r did not ra ise this que stion in his ope n i ng brie f. “ It is we ll e sta blishe d in this c i rc uit tha

t the ge ne ra l rule is tha

t a ppe lla nts c a nnot ra i se a

ne w issue for the first tim e i n the ir re ply brie fs.” Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996) (a lte ra t ion om itte d) (quoting Ebe rle v . C i ty of Anahe im , 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th C ir. 1990)). 2a t 1007 (quoting Ramire z-Ale jandre v . Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 858, 875 (9th C ir. 2003)). Pe titione r m

u st p re se n t “ pla

u sible s c e na

rios in whic h the outc om e of the proc e e dings would ha ve be e n d iffe re nt, a bse nt the c onstitutiona

l viola t ion.” W alte rs v . Re no , 145 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th C ir. 1998). Assum ing, w itho u t de c iding, tha t pe titione r ha s suffe re d a due proc e ss viola tion, we hold tha t h e ha s fa ile d to e s ta blish pre judic e . In de n y ing the m otion for

a dm inistra

tive c losure , the IJ c onc lude d tha t pe titione r did n o t m e e t t h e r eq u i re d

c rite ria se t forth i n Matte r o f Av e tisy an , 25 I. & N. D e c . 688 (B .I.A. 2012). Pe titione r doe s not a ddre ss the IJ’ s c onc lusion or a rgue tha t his c a se wa s e li g i b le for

a dm inistra

tive c l osure unde r the the n-gove rning sta nda rd. Ac c ordingly, he ha s not de m onstra

te d pre judic e by showing how the o utc om e of his a g e nc y p roc e e dings c ould ha ve be e n a ffe c t ed b y the a lle ge d due proc e s s v iola tion or pre se nte d pla

usible

sc e n a rios in whic h t h e o u tc om e would ha ve be e n diffe re n t. Se e Gonzale z-C arav e o , 882 F.3d a t 894. B e c a

use pe t itione r doe s not show p r ej u d ice, his proc e dura l d ue proc e s s c la im

fa ils. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

.

3