LUIS PEREZ-SORIA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-70733 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 7 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ALBERTO PEREZ-SORIA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-70733 Agency No. A205-320-747 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Luis Alberto Perez-Soria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Perez-Soria contends he was denied due process as a result of being unable to fully present his case due to his former counsel’s incompetence and IJ bias. We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez-Soria’s contentions regarding his former counsel. See Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995) (petitioner must first exhaust ineffective assistance of counsel claim by raising it to the BIA). We reject Perez-Soria’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to address the IJ’s preclusion of his second witness because Perez-Soria did not raise this issue to the BIA. Further, we reject Perez-Soria’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (IJ’s conduct did not deny petitioners due process). Perez-Soria does not otherwise challenge the agency’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 14-70733

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.