Case Name: Alfonso ESCOTO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-01
Citations: 647 F. App'x 707
Docket Number: No. 13-70949
Parties: Alfonso ESCOTO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 647
Pages: 707–708

Head Matter:
Alfonso ESCOTO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70949.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed April 1, 2016.
Robert Charles Marton, The Law Alliance, A.P.C., Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Margot Carter, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, 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
Alfonso Escoto-Rodriguez, 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 ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
Escoto-Rodriguez' contention that the IJ violated due process, by allegedly misstating the amount of time Escoto-Rodri-guez would have to remain outside the United States for consular processing, fails for lack of prejudice. The BIA conducted a de novo review and concluded that, even if the IJ had erred in estimating the time for consular processing, the record did not establish the requisite hardship for a grant of cancellation of removal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.