Jose Antonio Arreola- Amezquita 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO ARREOLA-
AMEZQUITA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70434
Agency No. A095-489-549
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Arreola-Amezquita, 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 adjustment of status.
FILED
APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s findings of fact, Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091
(9th Cir. 2005), and review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We
deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Arreola-Amezquita met his
burden of proving lawful admission in March 2000. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183
F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (a contrary result is not compelled where there is
“[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Arreola-Amezquita’s testimony
regarding his manner of entry materially conflicted with the Form I-213 and
supporting testimony of Agent Rosenberg. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310
(9th Cir. 1995) (finding a Form I-213 probative and its admission fundamentally
fair).
It follows that Arreola-Amezquita’s due process contentions are unavailing.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due
process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --