Leonardo Soto Mendoza v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONARDO SOTO MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70462
Agency No. A200-700-450
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Leonardo Soto Mendoza, 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”) denial of his motion for administrative closure. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70462
Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the
petition for review.
Although the IJ failed to explain his reasons for denying Soto Mendoza’s
motion for administrative closure, the BIA reviewed the motion on appeal and
sufficiently explained its reasons for denying under the factors applicable at the
time of the agency’s final decision. See 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.”); Gonzalez-Caraveo, 882 F.3d at 891.
Accordingly, Soto Mendoza’s due process contention fails. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --