Byron A. Maradiaga, a.k.a. Byron Aguilar Maradiaga, a.k.a. Byron Augusto Maradiaga v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BYRON A. MARADIAGA, a.k.a. Byron
Aguilar Maradiaga, a.k.a. Byron Augusto
Maradiaga,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73299
Agency No. A029-332-387
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Byron A. Maradiaga, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including constitutional claims.
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921-22 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny
the petition for review.
The record does not support Maradiaga’s claim that the IJ violated his due
process rights by exhibiting bias, because the proceedings were not so
fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case,
and because he failed to demonstrate prejudice. See id. at 926 (requiring a
petitioner alleging IJ bias to show that the IJ harbored a “deep-seated favoritism or
antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”); see also id. (requiring
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). Because “the factual record
adequately supports the denial of [Maradiaga’s] application for relief, we cannot
find that the alleged bias held by the IJ was the basis for the denial of the
application.” Id.
Although two of Maradiaga’s merits hearings were interrupted and
rescheduled due to technical difficulties, the record shows that Maradiaga and his
three witnesses were given a full opportunity to testify. See id. at 926-27 (“Where
an alien is given a full and fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, to prepare
an application for . . . relief, and to present testimony and other evidence in support
of the application, he or she has been provided with due process.”). The record
12-73299 2

-- 2 of 3 --

belies Maradiaga’s contention that he was prejudiced because the IJ utilized
written summaries of the case submitted by the parties due to the technical
difficulties.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73299 3

-- 3 of 3 --