Panuncio Munoz Ortiz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PANUNCIO MUNOZ ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72685
Agency No. A073-809-632
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Panuncio Munoz Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision finding him removable for having participated in
alien smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
FILED
JUN 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-72685 2
novo questions of law, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2005),
and claims of constitutional violations, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.
2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Ortiz’s due process rights were not violated by admission of the Record of
Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (“Form I-213”) because the form was probative and
its admission was not fundamentally unfair, and the preparing officer testified at
the hearing regarding the preparation of the form. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d
308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a
deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is
fundamentally fair”).
We lack jurisdiction over Ortiz’s unexhausted contention that the admission
of the Form I-213 violated due process because it did not demonstrate whether a
government agent had informed him of his regulatory rights. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --