Antonio Hernandez-Flores, a.k.a. George Steven Martinez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-FLORES,
a.k.a. George Steven Martinez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70497
Agency No. A098-406-553
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Hernandez-Flores, 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 his applications for
cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by
FILED
DEC 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70497 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Hamazaspyan v. Holder,
590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA properly concluded that Hernandez-Flores was not prejudiced by
the IJ’s failure to notify him of pre-conclusion voluntary departure at his removal
proceedings. His due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring both error and “substantial prejudice” to
prevail on a due process challenge in removal proceedings).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of Hernandez-
Flores’ application for post-conclusion voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1252(a)(2)(B), 1229c(f).
Hernandez-Flores’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --