FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO RIOS-ARIZENDI, AKA Daniel No. 15-72238 Gutierrez Salgado, AKA Sergio Rios- Arizmendi, AKA Gabriel Rosas Rios, Agency No. A095-763-160 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 3, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Stanley Allen Bastian, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. Sergio Rios-Arizendi (“Rios”), native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)’s denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Rios fears harm by the family members of a woman he accidentally killed in 1996 while driving a bus in Acapulco, Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. First, the immigration judge (“IJ”) did not violate Rios’s right to due process during the 2014 removal proceedings. See Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 693 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We will reverse the BIA’s decision on due process grounds only if the underlying IJ proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rios does not argue that the IJ’s decision to review the audiotape of the 2009 removal proceedings during the 2014 proceedings was a due process violation. According to Rios, the due process violation occurred when the IJ initially decided to review the audiotape “outside of the courtroom, and out of the presence of the parties.” However, he points to no statute or regulation that the IJ violated, and does not explain how he was prejudiced as a result of this review. See id. (“Even if a removal hearing was conducted in a fundamentally unfair manner, a petitioner must show prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have 2 been affected by the alleged violation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In addition, the IJ gave Rios’s counsel the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues concerning the recording. Furthermore, any prejudice that Rios may have suffered was cured when the parties were provided with the full transcript of the 2009 proceedings and each side was given the opportunity to submit briefs to the BIA to address the tapes. Finally, although the IJ “closed the record for evidence” at the end of the October 6, 2014 hearing, the IJ provided both parties an opportunity to address any issues at a later hearing on November 10, 2014. Rios points to no evidence that he was prevented from getting admitted ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals