Case Name: Jose OLVERA-FRIAS, aka Jose Olivera-Frias, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-27
Citations: 272 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 04-71359
Parties: Jose OLVERA-FRIAS, aka Jose Olivera-Frias, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
Jose OLVERA-FRIAS, aka Jose Olivera-Frias, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71359.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 27, 2008.
Daniel E. Chavez, Esq., Law Offices of Daniel E. Chavez, Petaluma, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, Terri J. Scadron, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Olvera-Frias, 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 decision denying him relief under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Olvera-Frias met his burden of proving unrelinquished domicile. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that a contrary result is not compelled where there is "[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Olvera-Frias' due process contention is unpersuasive. We note that the BIA did not use its affirmance without opinion procedure in this case.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.