Israel Ramirez Ramon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ISRAEL RAMIREZ RAMON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71080
Agency No. A077-056-063
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.
Israel Ramirez Ramon, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71080 2
Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny
the petition for review.
The agency properly concluded that Ramirez Ramon was ineligible for
cancellation of removal because he lacked seven years of continuous residence in
the United States after being “admitted in any status.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2);
see also Vasquez de Alcantar, 645 F.3d at 1103 (filing an application for
adjustment of status does not confer admission); Guevara v. Holder, 649 F.3d
1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011) (a grant of work authorization does not confer
admission).
Ramirez Ramon’s contention that the BIA violated his right to due process
by denying his motion to accept a late-filed brief fails because he has not
established prejudice resulting from the alleged violation. See Colmenar v. INS,
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (to establish prejudice in support of a due
process claim, petitioner must show that the outcome of his proceedings may have
been affected).
Ramirez Ramon’s contention that the denial of cancellation of removal
violated his right to equal protection is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --