Winston Valentine Walters 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WINSTON VALENTINE WALTERS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72772
Agency No. A095-748-920
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Winston Valentine Walters, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination that
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72772 2
petitioner knowingly engaged in drug trafficking, Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, 654
F.3d 826, 836 (9th Cir. 2011), and review de novo constitutional claims, Gutierrez
v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Walters is
inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) as an illicit trafficker in a
controlled substance, where an Immigration Customs Enforcement agent and a
narcotics detective independently confirmed that Walters admitted to expecting a
package with a large sum of money that he planned to use to purchase marijuana,
and the package was addressed to Walters and contained $69,800. Contrary to
Walters’ assertion, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) does not require a criminal
conviction to establish inadmissibility. See Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d
1206, 1209-10 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the agency properly denied his
adjustment of status application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2) (alien seeking
adjustment of status must be admissible at the time of application).
Walters’ contention that the IJ violated due process by not giving him an
opportunity to present witnesses to challenge his signature on the consent to search
form is not supported by the record, and the proceedings were not “so
fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.”

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72772 3
Gutierrez, 662 F.3d at 1091 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Walters’ claim that the IJ should have
granted him a continuance because he failed to raise that claim before the BIA and
thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Walters’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --