NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH No. 17-71516 MANZENKO, Agency No. A071-139-180 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Vladimir Vladimirovich Manzenko, a native of the U.S.S.R. and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeals from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying * 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). cancellation of removal and an IJ’s order denying his motions to reopen and remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Manzenko’s contention that the agency violated due process by denying him the opportunity to submit new evidence is not supported, where the BIA considered the proffered evidence in its de novo review of the IJ’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See id. (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”); Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190, 1199 (9th Cir. 2010) (any error by the IJ was rendered harmless by the BIA’s de novo review of the issue). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-71516 17-71516 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Vladimir Manzenko v. Jefferson Sessions, III 15 June 2018 Agency Unpublished 5d9baeeb26157df1d881573b9b850ff5de44a6d8
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals