Jose Luis Merida Rodas v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS MERIDA RODAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72784
Agency No. A098-261-340
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. Jose Luis Merida Rodas contends that the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) failed to follow its own internal regulations when it reinstated his
removal order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). We lack jurisdiction to review
those claims. Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, 727 F.3d 873, 877–78 (9th Cir. 2013).
FILED
MAR 18 2015
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 --

Page 2 of 2
2. Rodas contends that the DHS’s actions also violated his due process
rights. We have jurisdiction to review those claims, id. at 877–78 & n.3, but none
of them have merit.
Rodas argues that the DHS’s failure to notify him of its intent to reinstate his
removal order violated a fundamental due process right. The DHS committed no
error on that score. The record shows that Rodas was properly served with a
document giving him the required notice. He “refused to sign” to acknowledge
receipt, but his refusal of service did not deprive him of notice.
His two remaining contentions fail as well. First, Rodas argues that the DHS
violated its own internal regulations by failing to obtain a copy of the full version
of his prior removal order. 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a)(1). Second, Rodas claims that the
DHS violated its own regulations by not “immediately” referring Rodas to his
reasonable-fear hearing, see 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(e), even though Rodas now admits
that the hearing has occurred. Neither of these claims implicates “fundamental due
process rights,” so Rodas must show prejudice. See United States v. Raya-Vaca,
771 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2014). He has not done so here, and that failure is
dispositive.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

-- 2 of 2 --