Vicente Damian-Rodriguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VICENTE DAMIAN-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70897
Agency No. A088-360-177
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Vicente Damian-Rodriguez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-70897 2
de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th
Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly determined that the IJ did not violate Damian-Rodriguez’s
due process rights by excluding an untimely submitted therapist’s report from the
evidentiary record, where Damian-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate that the report
may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to
prevail on a due process challenge).
Damian-Rodriguez failed to raise in his opening brief, and therefore waived,
any challenges to the BIA’s determination that his video-conference hearing did
not violate his due process rights, and to the agency’s hardship determination. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in the
opening brief may be deemed waived).
Damian-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 3 --

12-70897 3

-- 3 of 3 --