FRANCISCO GONZALEZ ZAMUDIO, AKA Francisco Gonzalez Zamudio, AKA Francisco Zamudio… v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ ZAMUDIO,
AKA Francisco Gonzalez Zamudio, AKA
Francisco Zamudio Gonzalez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72319
Agency No. A037-442-070
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Gonzalez Zamudio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
FILED
JAN 26 2016
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 --

novo constitutional challenges and questions of law. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,
770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency correctly determined that the record establishes that Zamudio
was convicted under California Health and Safety Code § 11378, for possession for
purpose of sale of methamphetamine, which constitutes a controlled substance
violation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) that renders him removable. See
Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 831 n.3; Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189
(9th Cir. 2011) (stating that methamphetamine is a federally-controlled substance).
The plea form specifies both the controlled substance involved and the count in the
charging document that also names the controlled substance. See Murillo-Prado v.
Holder, 735 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Zamudio’s claims that
his due process rights were violated because the record documents allegedly did
not establish removability fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and
prejudice). In addition, the use of the June date on the Notice to Appear did not
deprive Zamudio of a full and fair hearing. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d
1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[d]ue process is satisfied only by a full and fair
hearing”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72319 2

-- 2 of 2 --