Miguel Sanchez-Chacolla v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 518 F. App'x 548 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 17 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MIGUEL SANCHEZ-CHACOLLA,                         No. 10-71126
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A097-340-184
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 14, 2013 **
    Before:        LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Miguel Sanchez-Chacolla, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying pre-conclusion voluntary
    departure. 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).
    claims of due process violations. Rojas v. Holder, 
    704 F.3d 792
    , 794 (9th Cir.
    2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
    We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Sanchez-Chacolla’s
    request for pre-conclusion voluntary departure. See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(B);
    Rojas, 704 F.3d at 794.
    Sanchez-Chacolla’s claim that the IJ exhibited bias or prejudice during his
    removal proceedings is not supported by the record. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 
    508 F.3d 1271
    , 1276 (9th Cir. 2007).
    Contrary to Sanchez-Chacolla’s contention, the BIA’s decision adequately
    addressed his claim that his due process rights were violated. See Najmabadi v.
    Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an
    exegesis on every contention”).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
    2                                   10-71126
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-71126

Citation Numbers: 518 F. App'x 548

Judges: Leavy, Murguia, Thomas

Filed Date: 5/17/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023