Cuauhtemoc Baltazar-Orozco v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 397 F. App'x 347 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CUAUHTEMOC BALTAZAR-OROZCO, No. 08-73200
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-664-548
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cuauhtemoc Baltazar-Orozco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2005), and
claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency properly concluded that Baltazar-Orozco was the subject of an
expedited removal order that interrupted his continuous physical presence. See
Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2007) (an expedited
removal order interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation
purposes). Baltazar-Orozco’s due process claim fails because he cannot
demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction over Baltazar-Orozco’s contention that the expedited
removal order in the record did not pertain to him, because he failed to exhaust this
contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-73200