Trevino-Cavazos v. Gonzales , 194 F. App'x 244 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 22, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60846
Summary Calendar
GUILLERMO TREVINO-CAVAZOS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
Petition for Review From An Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A34 376 735
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*1
We dismiss the petition for the following reasons:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Page 1
1. The REAL ID Act limits appellate jurisdiction over petitions for review in cases
such as this, where petitioner is a felon, to solely “constitutional claims or
questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Although Trevino-Cavazos phrases
his main argument in legal terms (“disregard of applicable case law”), he uses
those terms to cloak a request for review of the BIA’s discretionary decision (the
failure to consider “hardship” in the balancing of favorable and adverse factors).
This argument is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Due process claims are reviewed de novo. DeZavala v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 879,
883 (5th Cir. 2004). “Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require
an initial showing of substantial prejudice.” Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th
Cir. 1997). “The rules of evidence, including those that exclude hearsay, do not
govern deportation proceedings.” Olabanji v. INS, 973 F.2d 1232, 1234 (5th Cir.
1992) (citations omitted). Trevino-Cavazos does not demonstrate that the
information contained in the PSR was false or that the IJ would have reached a
contrary conclusion even had the PSR not been considered. There has been no
showing of “substantial prejudice.”
PETITION DISMISSED.
Page 2