Court Opinion

ID: 9398267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 18:01:12.357231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.866988
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 30 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN LABORIN-LEDES,                             No. 21-186
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A090-837-421
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Laborin-Ledes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and

claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v.

      *
            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).
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

      Laborin-Ledes’s contention that the IJ erred in admitting into evidence

untimely submissions from the Department of Homeland Security fails because

the IJ has wide latitude to control filing deadlines for the admission of evidence.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (2019) (“The Immigration Judge may set and extend

time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses

thereto, if any.”); see also Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 74, 83 (BIA 2020)

(“After an Immigration Judge has set a firm deadline for filing an application

for relief, the respondent’s opportunity to file the application may be deemed

waived . . . if the deadline passes without submission of the application and no

good cause for noncompliance has been shown.” (emphasis added)).

      Laborin-Ledes’s contention that the IJ violated his right to due process by

admitting into evidence the late-filed documents fails because he failed to show

error and prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                    21-186