NELSON URIEL LOZANO-CARRANZA, AKA Nelson Uriel Lozano v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON URIEL LOZANO-CARRANZA,
AKA Nelson Uriel Lozano,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-74005
Agency No. A205-713-163
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: BEA, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Lozano-Carranza petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final
order of removal. We deny the petition.
* 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
DEC 13 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Lozano-Carranza is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without
inspection. He appeared pro se in his removal hearing despite previously having
been granted a continuance to obtain counsel. He waived his right to an attorney,
conceded removability, and applied for no relief.
Lozano-Carranza argues he was denied Due Process because the IJ allegedly
failed to develop the record, explain relevant procedures, or advise on the need for
corroborating evidence to establish eligibility for relief. But once the IJ
determined—on the record—that Lozano-Carranza was not apparently eligible for
any form of relief, Lozano-Carranza had “no blanket right to be advised of the
possibility of asylum or other relief.” Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th
Cir. 2008). First, Lozano-Carranza did not testify that he had ever been “harmed in
Mexico” or feared harm, so he did not qualify for asylum, withholding of removal,
or protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. Second, Lozano-
Carranza testified to being incarcerated for two and a half years, so he failed to show
“good moral character” to qualify for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b)(1)(B).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Carranza’s motion
for a remand because he did not include an application for asylum in his motion, nor
did he establish prima facie eligibility for asylum relief in his declaration. Romero-
Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds

-- 2 of 3 --

3
by Cheneau v. Garland, 997 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2021).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --