NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELISEO CORONADO-GALVAN, No. 20-73076 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-809-131 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2023** Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Eliseo Coronado-Galvan, 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 decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. Coronado-Galvan’s claim the agency violated due process by denying him the opportunity to testify fails for lack of 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.”). Because Coronado-Galvan does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection, we do not consider these issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 20-73076 20-73076 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Eliseo Coronado-Galvan v. Merrick Garland 25 April 2023 Unpublished 265577ce0f5ed381af86aaaee15922b9b2a615ee
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals