Juan Jesus Escartin-Guzman v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JESUS ESCARTIN-GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1257
Agency No.
A209-119-297
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 19, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: TALLMAN, OWENS, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jesus Escartin-Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his
appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. We review de novo legal and constitutional questions,
including alleged due process violations. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195,
* 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
APR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-1257
1198 (9th Cir. 2012). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not
recount them here. We deny the petition for review.
Escartin-Guzman argues that his due process rights were violated because
the administrative record does not contain two hearing transcripts. The BIA
denied Escartin-Guzman’s due process claim on the ground that he failed to
show prejudice, i.e., “that the outcome of the proceeding may have been
affected by the” missing transcripts. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
The BIA did not err because Escartin-Guzman “offers only the vague
assertion that, if a [transcript] was available, he might be able to locate” an issue
raised at the hearings, such as administrative closure. United States v. Medina,
236 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2001). “But this is ‘no more than speculation to
support his assertion of prejudice, and [he has] fail[ed] to set forth any plausible
argument or factual basis’ that would support his position.” Id. (alteration in
original) (citation omitted).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --