Alberto Jorge Vargas- Rodriguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALBERTO JORGE VARGAS-
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71821
Agency No. A099-632-993
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Jorge Vargas-Rodriguez, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71821 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
Vargas-Rodriguez’s contention that the BIA violated his right to due process
by not addressing his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails because he has
not established prejudice resulting from the BIA’s omission. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
Vargas-Rodriguez has failed to raise in his opening brief, and therefore has
waived, any challenge to the agency’s denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not
raised in a petitioner’s opening brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --