Norberto Ballesteros Frias 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NORBERTO BALLESTEROS FRIAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73887
Agency No. A043-807-373
MEMORANDUM*
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.
Norberto Ballesteros Frias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-73887 2
§ 1252. Reviewing de novo, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.
2004), we deny the petition for review.
Contrary to his contention, Ballesteros Frias is not eligible to apply for relief
under former section 212(c), because he has not been admitted as a legal
permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996) (providing relief only
to “[a]liens lawfully admitted for permanent residence”); 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(1)
(“An application for relief under former section 212(c) of the Act shall be denied
if: (1) The alien has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”).
Ballesteros Frias’ contention that he received insufficient notice regarding
exclusion proceedings fails because he was placed in removal, not exclusion,
proceedings. He fails to establish any prejudice from his treatment as an arriving
alien. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due
process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --