United States of America v. CATARINO MINERO-ROJAS, AKA Catalina Minero-Rojas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CATARINO MINERO-ROJAS, AKA
Catalina Minero-Rojas,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50510
D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01314-BTM-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CATARINO MINERO-ROJAS, AKA
Catalina Minero-Rojas,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50511
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-03253-BTM-1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
FEB 19 2014
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.

-- 1 of 4 --

Argued and Submitted February 5, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District
Judge.**
Catarino Minero-Rojas appeals his conviction for illegal reentry. He
unsuccessfully attempts to challenge each of his three removals.
Minero argues his 1997 removal was invalid because he never had an
adequate opportunity to develop his claim for derivative citizenship. The
Immigration Judge (“IJ”), however, repeatedly asked Minero if he wanted to
pursue a derivative citizenship claim, and Minero declined. There was no
unfairness. See United States v. Melendez-Castro, 671 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.
2012).
Minero also argues that the IJ failed to inform him of his right to seek
discretionary relief under the former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act. Failure to inform an alien of a possible avenue of relief renders a subsequent
removal invalid only if the alien suffered prejudice. See United States v. Ubaldo-
Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1047–48 (9th Cir. 2004). Minero cannot show that he
had a “plausible” claim for discretionary relief. United States v. Rojas-Pedroza,
** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

716 F.3d 1253, 1262 (9th Cir. 2013). His substantial criminal record would have
required him to demonstrate the existence of “outstanding equities” in his favor.
United States v. Gonzalez-Valerio, 342 F.3d 1051, 1056–67 (9th Cir. 2003).
Minero’s lengthy residence in the United States and the fact that his family also
resides here are not sufficient. See id. at 1057. Minero argues that the IJ never
informed him of his right to appeal, but Minero cannot demonstrate any arguments
he would have asserted. He therefore cannot show prejudice. See Ubaldo-
Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1047–48.
Minero was also subject to expedited removals in 2004 and 2007, both of
which he challenges on due process grounds. Though he alleges that he was never
informed of his right to withdraw his application for admission, that does not
constitute a due process violation in the expedited removal context. United States
v. Sanchez-Aguilar, 719 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2013). He also argues that the
immigration officers should have referred him to an IJ for a hearing to determine
whether he was a derivative citizen. Minero has never asserted a claim of
derivative citizenship even though having been previously advised that he might do
so. See United States v. Gomez, 732 F.3d 971, 983 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendant
bears the burden of showing prejudice).
3

-- 3 of 4 --

Finally, Minero alleges that the immigration officers at both his 2002 and
2007 proceedings failed to strictly comply with the regulations governing
expedited removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1235.3(b)(2)(i). He points to no
more than technical errors that do not give rise to a due process violation. See
United States v. Mendez-Casillas, 272 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding
that a clerical error is not sufficient to render an otherwise proper removal invalid).
Minero does not attempt to explain how these discrepancies prejudiced him or
affected the integrity of the proceedings in any way.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --