Court Opinion

ID: 4706967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-27 20:03:03.967409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:53.032703
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 27 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR ACOSTA-OCHOA,                            No.    14-72843

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A095-795-786

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before:      SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

      Hector Acosta-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.

Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for

review.

      The BIA properly denied cancellation of removal, where Acosta-Ochoa

failed to meet his burden of proof to establish he was not convicted of a controlled

substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida

v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 758, 766 (2021) (an inconclusive conviction record is

insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of proof to show eligibility for relief).

      The agency did not err or violate due process by relying on uncertified

conviction documents. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.41(d); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           2                                    14-72843