Sosa Espinoza v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN SOSA ESPINOZA, No. 22-1746 Agency No. Petitioner, A209-129-962 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 17, 2024** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Juan Sosa Espinoza, 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 denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Because Sosa Espinoza does not contest the agency’s denial of asylum or withholding of removal, or the BIA’s determination that he waived challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Sosa Espinoza’s claim that the IJ violated due process by exhibiting bias fails because he has not shown error or prejudice. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 22-1746