Case Name: Luis Alberto PEREZ-SORIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-07
Citations: 693 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 14-70733
Parties: Luis Alberto PEREZ-SORIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Luis Alberto PEREZ-SORIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70733
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 7, 2017
Fabian C. Serrato, Attorney, Serrato Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner
Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice,' Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: PAEZ, BEA, 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
Luis Alberto Perez-Soria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004), We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Perez-Soria contends he was denied due process as a result of being unable to fully present his case due to his former counsel's incompetence and IJ bias. We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez-Soria's contentions regarding his former counsel. See Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995) (petitioner must first exhaust ineffective assistance of counsel claim by raising it to the BIA). We reject Perez-Soria's contention that the BIA erred by failing to address the IJ's preclusion of his second witness because Perez-Soria did not raise this issue to the BIA. Further, we reject Perez-Soria's contention that the IJ violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (IJ's conduct did not deny petitioners due process). Perez-Soria does not otherwise challenge the agency's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.