Case: 21-340, 02/21/2023, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Eduardo Soliban Labitoria, Jr., No. 21-340 Petitioner, Agency No. A058-661-115 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges Eduardo Soliban Labitoria, Jr. (“Labitoria”), a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for a review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that Labitoria was ineligible for readjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. * 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). Case: 21-340, 02/21/2023, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 2 of 4 “We review de novo claims of equal protection and due process violations in removal proceedings.” Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). “The BIA’s decision will be reversed on due process grounds if (1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “An alien bears the burden of proving the alleged violation prejudiced his or her interests.” Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). 1. The agency did not violate Labitoria’s due process rights by informing Labitoria that he was ineligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility in conjunction with an application for readjustment of status.1 Even if the government erroneously advised the IJ that Labitoria entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”), Labitoria cannot demonstrate prejudice from this alleged error. The IJ found Labitoria ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility due to a prior controlled substance offense, not his LPR status. Labitoria does not contest the agency’s finding of ineligibility 1 Although Labitoria did not raise this issue before the BIA, we may consider it because the failure to “inform the alien of his or her apparent eligibility” for certain discretionary relief excuses the alien from the exhaustion requirement. United States v. Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)). 2 21-340 Case: 21-340, 02/21/2023, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 3 of 4 based on his prior controlled substance offense and has waived this issue. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). 2. This Court has jurisdiction to consider a claim to be a United States national pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals