Gilberto Acosta-Olivarria v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO ACOSTA-OLIVARRIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70902
Agency No. A079-657-188
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Acosta-Olivarria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations and questions of
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition
for review.
The BIA correctly concluded that Acosta-Olivarria is ineligible to adjust
status because he is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) for having
accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States and then
reentering without admission. See Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 09-72603,
2012 WL 5077137, at *7 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2012) (en banc) (aliens who are
inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) are not eligible for adjustment of
status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)).
Acosta-Olivarria’s due process contentions therefore fail. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
10-70902 2

-- 2 of 2 --