United States v. 2020-07-23 | 19-73015 | APOLINAR HERNANDEZ-CRUZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

APOLINAR HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, AKA
Apolinar Cruz,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-73015

Agency No. A200-248-408

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Apolinar Hernandez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

*
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

JUL 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-73015
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Hernandez-Cruz does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
Hernandez-Cruz’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
Hernandez-Cruz’s claim that the use of a Spanish interpreter in his removal
proceedings violated his due process rights fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (a petitioner must show error and prejudice to prevail on a
due process claim); see also Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 n.8 (9th Cir.
2018) (rejecting due process claim based on translation issues where a review of
the transcript did not evince translation issues).
Hernandez-Cruz’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is
denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.