Court Opinion

ID: 9926431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 19:00:43.219428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:49.112329
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN SOSA ESPINOZA,                             No. 22-1746
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A209-129-962
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Sosa Espinoza, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

      *
             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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

questions of law. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020).

We deny the petition for review.

      Because Sosa Espinoza does not contest the agency’s denial of asylum or

withholding of removal, or the BIA’s determination that he waived challenge to the

IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v.

Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Sosa Espinoza’s claim that the IJ violated due process by exhibiting bias

fails because he has not shown error or prejudice. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,

770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner

must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        2                                 22-1746