Case Name: Emiliano CHAVEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-11
Citations: 210 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 05-74255
Parties: Emiliano CHAVEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 666–668

Head Matter:
Emiliano CHAVEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74255.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 16, 2006.
Filed Dec. 11, 2006.
Soren M. Rottman, Esq., Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Granger, WA, Matthew H. Adams, Esq., Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Christopher Lee Pickrell, Esq., Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esq., USSE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Emiliano Chavez-Gonzalez appeals from a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") final order of removal. Pursuant to section 106(c) of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 311, Chavez-Gonzalez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was transferred from the district court to this court as a petition for direct review. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2005). Chavez-Gonzalez alleges that the BIA unlawfully sustained the charge of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) based solely on the contents of a "Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien" ("Form 1-213"). In addition, he claims violations of his statutory and constitutional due process rights.
The BIA determined that Chavez-Gonzalez was removable because immigration officers at the border had "reason to believe" that he knowingly participated in drug smuggling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C). Although the REAL ID Act restores this court's jurisdiction over questions of law regardless of the underlying offense, see id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Chavez-Gonzalez's sufficiency challenge does not raise a legal question and therefore we cannot consider this claim, id. § 1252(a)(2)(C).
As to Chavez-Gonzalez's due process claims, it is unclear whether he properly exhausted these claims before the BIA; if he did not, this court lacks jurisdiction to review them on appeal. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). However, assuming Chavez-Gonzalez exhausted his administrative remedies, he has not established the requisite prejudice to sustain his due process claims. Because Chavez-Gonzalez conceded during his testimony that he made the statements memorialized in the Form 1-213, cross-examining the officer who prepared the document would not "potentially . affect[ ] the outcome of the proceedings." See Zolotukhin v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.