Case Name: Jose Alberto MARCIAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-09
Citations: 437 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 09-74093
Parties: Jose Alberto MARCIAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
Jose Alberto MARCIAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-74093.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 9, 2011.
Tyler Ryan Andrews, Esquire, Green-berg Traurig LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Puneet K. Garg, Henderson, NV, for Petitioner.
Yedidya Cohen, Trial, 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: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Alberto Marcial, 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 ("D") decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.
Marcial's due process claims fail because the proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case in support of his adjustment of status application, and he failed to demonstrate prejudice where the BIA, in its de novo review, concluded that Marcial's positive factors do not outweigh his criminal record. See id. at 971-72; see also Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir.2006)(where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than simply adopting the IJ's decision, our review "is limited to the BIA's decision, except to the extent the IJ's opinion is expressly adopted.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.