Case Name: Julio Cesar LUNA-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-18
Citations: 550 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 12-71102
Parties: Julio Cesar LUNA-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 404–404

Head Matter:
Julio Cesar LUNA-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71102.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
Robin Chandler Carr, Law Office of Robin Carr, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, John M. McAdams, Jr., 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, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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
Julio Cesar Luna-Gutierrez, 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") order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims. Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
Luna-Gutierrez contends that the BIA violated due process by accepting the IJ's certification of his case after remand. Luna-Gutierrez's due process claim fails because he has not indicated what additional evidence he would have submitted on remand if his case had not been certified back to the BIA. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.