Angel Carrillo-Guanin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGEL CARRILLO-GUANIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73836
Agency No. A092-814-589
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.
Angel Carrillo-Guanin, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal
from a removal order of an immigration judge (“IJ”). Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process
FILED
FEB 13 2013
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 --

claims. Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in dismissing Carrillo-Guanin’s appeal on the ground
that he had waived his right to appeal. See Matter of Rodriguez-Diaz,
22 I. & N. Dec. 1320, 1322 (BIA 2000) (“By waiving appeal, an alien relinquishes
the opportunity to obtain review of the Immigration Judge’s ruling.”).
The BIA also did not violate Carrillo-Guanin’s right to due process by
failing to provide him with a transcript of the removal hearings or the IJ’s oral
decision, failing to allow him to argue that his waiver of the right to appeal was
invalid, failing to consider the validity of his waiver of appeal, or failing to issue a
briefing schedule, because Carrillo-Guanin has not demonstrated that the BIA’s
actions prejudiced the outcome of his removal proceedings in light of his statutory
ineligibility for relief. See Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 926 (“In order to
prevail on a due process claim . . . , an alien must . . . show prejudice – that his
rights were violated in a manner so as potentially to affect the outcome of the
proceedings.”); see also United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 684 (9th Cir. 2010)
(finding that the petitioner suffered no prejudice from a regulatory violation
because he presented no “plausible grounds for relief”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73836 2

-- 2 of 2 --