Gabriel Calderon-Ortiz v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Gabriel Calderon-Ortiz,
Petitioner,
v.
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 21-327
Agency No. A097-764-375
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Calderon-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision deeming his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture abandoned, and finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-327
the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.
2004). We deny the petition for review.
We do not address Calderon-Ortiz’s contention that he was unjustly
denied withholding of removal because the agency did not adjudicate this
application, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.
2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the agency), and Calderon-
Ortiz does not contend the BIA erred in finding the IJ properly determined that
he abandoned his application for withholding of removal, see Corro-Barragan
v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in
opening brief resulted in waiver).
In his opening brief, Calderon-Ortiz does not contend that the BIA erred
in determining he is ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his criminal
convictions. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised
and argued in his opening brief). Thus, Calderon-Ortiz’s cancellation of
removal claim fails.
We reject Calderon-Ortiz’s assertion that he is a lawful permanent
resident as unsupported by the record.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Calderon-Ortiz failed to establish
a violation of his due process rights based on allegations that the IJ was biased,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-327
interrupted him, and failed to provide a reason for denying relief. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --