Luis Antonio Hernandez Camacho v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ANTONIO HERNANDEZ
CAMACHO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-72328
07-74065
Agency No. A096-166-398
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Luis Antonio Hernandez
Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NHY/Research 07-74065 2
judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and the BIA’s
order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law, including due process violations, Vasquez-
Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny both petitions for review.
Contrary to Hernandez Camacho’s contention that his due process rights
were violated because of a transcript error, the proceedings were not “so
fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.”
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Moreover,
Hernandez Camacho failed to demonstrate that redoing the transcript would have
affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on
a due process challenge).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez Camacho’s
motion to reopen where he failed to show statutory eligibility for cancellation of
removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039
(9th Cir. 2002).

-- 2 of 3 --

NHY/Research 07-74065 3
In light of our disposition, Petitioner’s motion to supplement the record is
denied as moot.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --