United States v. 2020-06-12 | 19-73055 | DENIS MENDEZ-RUIZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENIS OMAR MENDEZ-RUIZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-73055

Agency No. A094-353-409

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Denis Omar Mendez-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

JUN 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-73055
2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Mendez-Ruiz did not meaningfully challenge the agency’s grounds of
removability before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.
2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
Mendez-Ruiz’s claim that the IJ violated due process by failing to consider
his evidence fails, where the IJ considered the evidence submitted and questioned
Mendez-Ruiz at length about his evidence and arguments. See Vargas-Hernandez
v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Where an alien is given a full
and fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, prepare an application for []
relief, and to present testimony and other evidence in support of the application, he
or she has been provided with due process.”). Mendez-Ruiz’s claim that the IJ
engaged in “name profiling” appears to be a misunderstanding, not a due process
violation, and, even if such a violation occurred, Mendez-Ruiz has failed to
establish prejudice. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014).
Mendez-Ruiz’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.