Adrian Lopez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74489 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 29 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADRIAN NUNEZ LOPEZ, Petitioner, No. 08-74489 Agency No. A094-298-790 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Adrian Nunez Lopez, 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 application for cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American * 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). Relief Act of 1997 ( NACARA ). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and for substantial evidence factual findings, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Lopez s contention that the IJ violated due process by acting as a handwriting expert fails in light of the agency s reliance on alternative grounds for its finding that Lopez lied about the submission of work authorization and temporary protective status applications. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). Substantial evidence support the BIA s determination that there was no clear evidence of identity theft. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986. The record does not support Lopez s contention that the IJ had closed the record for entry of additional documents before admitting the work authorization and temporary protective status applications. Lopez s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal under NACARA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). 2 08-74489 We also lack jurisdiction to review Lopez s remaining contentions that the IJ engaged in speculation and that Lopez established good moral character despite the lack of candor finding because Lopez failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA. Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) ( A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ s decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.) PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 08-74489
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
