Jose Merida Rodas v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 598 F. App'x 533 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               MAR 18 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSE LUIS MERIDA RODAS,                          No. 11-72784
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A098-261-340
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 12, 2015**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    1. Jose Luis Merida Rodas contends that the Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS) failed to follow its own internal regulations when it reinstated his
    removal order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). We lack jurisdiction to review
    those claims. Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, 
    727 F.3d 873
    , 877–78 (9th Cir. 2013).
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Page 2 of 2
    2. Rodas contends that the DHS’s actions also violated his due process
    rights. We have jurisdiction to review those claims, 
    id. at 877–78
    & n.3, but none
    of them have merit.
    Rodas argues that the DHS’s failure to notify him of its intent to reinstate his
    removal order violated a fundamental due process right. The DHS committed no
    error on that score. The record shows that Rodas was properly served with a
    document giving him the required notice. He “refused to sign” to acknowledge
    receipt, but his refusal of service did not deprive him of notice.
    His two remaining contentions fail as well. First, Rodas argues that the DHS
    violated its own internal regulations by failing to obtain a copy of the full version
    of his prior removal order. 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a)(1). Second, Rodas claims that the
    DHS violated its own regulations by not “immediately” referring Rodas to his
    reasonable-fear hearing, see 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(e), even though Rodas now admits
    that the hearing has occurred. Neither of these claims implicates “fundamental due
    process rights,” so Rodas must show prejudice. See United States v. Raya-Vaca,
    
    771 F.3d 1195
    , 1205 (9th Cir. 2014). He has not done so here, and that failure is
    dispositive.
    PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-72784

Citation Numbers: 598 F. App'x 533

Filed Date: 3/18/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023