Rony Gomez-Fuentes v. Loretta E. Lynch , 668 F. App'x 215 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 5 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONY ARMANDO GOMEZ-FUENTES, No. 14-73475
AKA Fredy Rodas-Dominguez
Agency No. A206-408-440
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Rony Armando Gomez-Fuentes, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denying his
motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
de novo claims of due process violations, Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104,
1109 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We reject Gomez-Fuentes’ contentions that the IJ violated his due process
rights by failing to advise him of various forms of relief. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim);
Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 2008) (there is no
requirement that an alien be advised of the availability of relief where there is no
apparent eligibility for it).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Fuentes’ motion for
a remand because he did not establish prima facie eligibility for the relief he
sought. See Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 (“The BIA abuses its discretion if its
decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”) (internal quotation and citation
omitted).
Finally, Gomez-Fuentes’ challenge to the agency’s bond determination is
not properly before us, see Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.
2011) (setting forth procedure for challenging bond determinations), and we lack
2 14-73475
jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Fuentes’ right-to-counsel contention because he
failed to raise it to the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings
below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73475