JOSE VILLARREAL-DURAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71962 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE GUADALUPE VILLARREALDURAN, No. 13-71962 Agency No. A073-374-090 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2016** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jose Guadalupe Villarreal-Duran petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s * 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). decision finding him removable. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. “[A]dmissions by an alien to facts alleged in [a Notice to Appear], and concessions of removability, made in the 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c) ‘pleading stage’ of removal proceedings may be relied on by an [Immigration Judge.]” Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 663 F.3d 403, 410 (9th Cir. 2011). The IJ therefore properly relied on the admissions and concessions that Villarreal’s counsel made when pleading, and the IJ was not required to independently review Villarreal’s conviction documents. 2. Even assuming the IJ’s conduct denied Villarreal a full and fair hearing, his due process claim fails because he did not establish prejudice. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process challenge requires both error and substantial prejudice). The record indicates that Villarreal’s counsel was prepared to admit the allegations in the Notice to Appear and concede Villarreal’s removability even before his hearing began. Moreover, Villarreal does not contest his conviction. PETITION DENIED.
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.
