Case Name: Miguel SANCHEZ-CHACOLLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-17
Citations: 518 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 10-71126
Parties: Miguel SANCHEZ-CHACOLLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 548–548

Head Matter:
Miguel SANCHEZ-CHACOLLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71126.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 17, 2013.
Yevgeniy Chechenin, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
Anthony John Messuri, Esquire, 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: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Miguel Sanchez-Chacolla, 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 pre-conclusion voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Rojas v. Holder, 704 F.3d 792, 794 (9th Cir.2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of Sanchez-Chacolla's request for pre-conclusion voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Rojas, 704 F.3d at 794.
Sanchez-Chacolla's claim that the IJ exhibited bias or prejudice during his removal proceedings is not supported by the record. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271,1276 (9th Cir.2007).
Contrary to Sanchez-Chacolla's contention, the BIA's decision adequately addressed his claim that his due process rights were violated. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (the BIA "does not have to write an exegesis on every contention").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.