Juan Sosa Espinoza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN SOSA ESPINOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1746
Agency No.
A209-129-962
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Sosa Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
JAN 24 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-1746
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020).
We deny the petition for review.
Because Sosa Espinoza does not contest the agency’s denial of asylum or
withholding of removal, or the BIA’s determination that he waived challenge to the
IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Sosa Espinoza’s claim that the IJ violated due process by exhibiting bias
fails because he has not shown error or prejudice. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,
770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner
must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --