Uriel Rafael Ramirez-Sosa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
URIEL RAFAEL RAMIREZ-SOSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72739
Agency No. A029-555-568
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Uriel Rafael Ramirez-Sosa, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, 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 application for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72739 2
review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, see
Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Ramirez-Sosa contends the IJ violated due process by not providing him
with a copy of the 1991 order granting him suspension of deportation. Contrary to
Ramirez-Sosa’s contention, 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, Ramirez-Sosa failed to
demonstrate that correcting the IJ’s alleged error may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
We lack jurisdiction to review Ramirez-Sosa’s challenge to his charge of
removability because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --