Court Opinion

ID: 4448591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-10-21 21:00:25.990428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:11.397387
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 21 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR SANVICENTE-MOLINA,                         No.   18-70689

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A205-412-459

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before:      FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

      Oscar Sanvicente-Molina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have

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

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the

      *
             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).
petition for review.

      Sanvicente-Molina’s claim that the IJ violated due process by allegedly

excluding his wife’s testimony fails for lack of prejudice, where he did not

establish that his wife’s testimony may have changed the result in his case. See

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

prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                     18-70689