NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 14 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GONZALO FLORES, AKA Gonzalez No. 20-73279 Flores-Castaneda, Agency No. A099-828-685 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 10, 2022** Phoenix, Arizona Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and O’SCANNLAIN and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Gonzalo Flores petitions this Court to review Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his appeal claiming a due process violation by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them * 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). only as necessary to explain our decision. We deny the petition. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process in immigration proceedings. See Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir. 1999). Flores was entitled to a full and fair hearing of his claims and a reasonable opportunity to present his evidence. See id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4). “As a general rule, an individual may obtain relief for a due process violation only if he shows that . . . the violation potentially affected the outcome of the immigration proceeding.” Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018). Flores failed to do so. Contrary to his allegations, the BIA did not blindly accept IJ’s potentially tainted conclusions. Instead, it reviewed the facts de novo. Unlike the Immigration Judge, the Board credited Flores’s statements regarding his employment history, his child support payments, and the potential hardship to his third U.S. citizen child. Further, in making its discretionary determination, it disregarded the rock-throwing incident and Petitioner’s subsequent voluntary departure to Mexico. However, due to the long list of Flores’s brushes with the law and his lack of rehabilitation, the Board denied relief and dismissed the appeal. Neither did the IJ limit the evidence Flores was allowed to present at the hearing. In arguing that IJ’s bias precluded him from introducing additional evidence, Petitioner points to IJ’s statement that the parties should not focus on hardship. However, that statement was made to the Government. The IJ explained 2 that he had decided that Petitioner successfully showed hardship to qualifying relatives and advised the parties to focus on discretion. If anything, the statement favored Petitioner because it prevented the Government from introducing evidence to support its case. In any event, Flores does not reveal exactly what evidence the IJ precluded him from introducing, failing again to demonstrate prejudice. PETITION DENIED. 3 20-73279 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Gonzalo Flores v. Merrick Garland 14 February 2022 Agency Unpublished 1e69cb91746fc25106d70711c2d3d88642427b3d
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals