FRANCISCO LOPEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73833 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO ADAN LOPEZ, Petitioner, No. 14-73833 Agency No. A042-907-314 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Francisco Adan Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process * 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). violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. Lopez’s due process challenges to the IJ’s conduct of the removal proceedings are without merit. Lopez was granted a full and fair hearing, and he has not shown that the IJ failed to comply with her duty to inform him of available relief from removal, where Lopez has not shown “apparent eligibility” for any relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice). Lopez’s contention that the IJ sustained the charge of removability based solely on the admissions of a pro se petitioner, with no independent analysis of the conviction records, is contradicted by the record. In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lopez’s contention regarding hardship. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73833

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.