Case Name: Guillermo ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-13
Citations: 432 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 08-74206
Parties: Guillermo ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
Guillermo ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74206.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 5, 2011.
Filed May 13, 2011.
Margaret Branick-Abilla, Esquire, Christopher Brian Durbin, Esquire, Lori Ploeger, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Petitioner.
Guillermo Zamora, Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Benjamin Zeitlin, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Guillermo Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a final order of removal. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Zamora's current due process claims — issues which, if meritorious, the Board could have remedied — because he did not raise those claims before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir.2008). Those claims are dismissed.
We have jurisdiction to consider removability because the Board addressed the issue. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). The immigration judge and the Board did not err in relying on Zamora's admissions— made during the pleading stage of his hearing — to each of the allegations in the notice to appear. Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1143, 1147-55 (9th Cir.2011). Because these admissions established Zamora's removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)© by clear and convincing evidence, we deny the petition for review. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c)-(d).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.