NELSON LUCERO LOPEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70349 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 20 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NELSON ALBERTO LUCERO LOPEZ, AKA Ramon Espinoza-Gomez, No. 15-70349 Agency No. A206-410-323 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Nelson Alberto Lucero Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional * 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). violations. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Lucero Lopez’ contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by allegedly failing to sufficiently inquire about whether he had a fear of returning to Guatemala fails, where IJ sufficiently inquired about Lucero Lopez’ potential fear of return to Guatemala and Lucero Lopez indicated that he had none. See id. at 620-21 (“The BIA’s decision will be reversed on due process grounds if (1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). We lack jurisdiction to consider Lucero Lopez’ unexhausted contentions that he was deprived of his right against self-incrimination, his right to counsel, and his right to a neutral judge. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-70349

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.