Nestor Jamie Alvarez-Medina 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).
IH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NESTOR JAMIE ALVAREZ-MEDINA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73270
Agency No. A092-219-701
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Nestor Jamie Alvarez-Medina, 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 application for adjustment
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

IH/Research 07-73270 2
of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to deny Alvarez-
Medina’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(h) of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act. See Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999
(9th Cir. 2007) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes the court from reviewing the
agency’s decision under § 212(h)).
Alvarez-Medina’s contention that the IJ applied the incorrect standard in
evaluating his § 212(h) application fails because he does not raise a colorable due
process challenge on these facts. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267,
1270-71 (9th Cir. 2001) (“To be colorable ... the claim must have some possible
validity”); Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (any error committed
by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the BIA’s application of the correct legal
standard).
Alvarez-Medina’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by
relying on the IJ’s January 31, 2006, written decision in denying his appeal is

-- 2 of 3 --

IH/Research 07-73270 3
unpersuasive. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and prejudice to prevail
on due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --