Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Irwin MONJE-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-29
Citations: 621 F. App'x 477
Docket Number: No. 14-50232
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Irwin MONJE-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges and STAFFORD, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 621
Pages: 477–477

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Irwin MONJE-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50232.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 22, 2015.
Filed Oct. 29, 2015.
Janet Cabral, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Grant Eddy, Law Office of Grant L. Eddy, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges and STAFFORD, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
To prevail in this case, Monje-Ramirez must carry the burden of showing that he suffered prejudice as a consequence of a due process violation in connection with his expedited removal order in 2005. Prejudice means that he must demonstrate that he had "plausible grounds for relief' from deportation. United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir.2014). This burden he cannot meet.
First, because he was an aggravated felon removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), he was statutorily ineligible for any form of discretionary relief.
Second, as articulated by the district court, it is unimaginable, given his serious criminal record that any immigration judge would grant him any kind of relief.
Judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.