Rodolfo Mario Maravilla v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 15-14438 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-14438 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-14438 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A026-061-844 RODOLFO MARIO MARAVILLA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 29, 2016) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-14438 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 2 of 3 Rodolfo Mario Maravilla petitions for review of an order that expedited his removal from the United States as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1228(b), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Maravilla argues that the Department of Homeland Security failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is an alien and that the Department violated his right to due process during the expedited removal proceedings. We dismiss in part and deny in part Maravilla’s petition. We lack jurisdiction to review the finding that Maravilla is an alien. Maravilla received written notice that he was subject to removal as a native and citizen of Mexico who had been convicted twice in the Florida courts for drugrelated crimes and that he had ten days to submit evidence to rebut the charge. See 8 C.F.R. § 238.1(b)(2)(i). Maravilla failed to respond to the notice. “[A]bsent a cognizable excuse or exception,” we “lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies.” Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We dismiss this part of Maravilla’s petition. The Department did not violate Maravilla’s right to due process. To establish a violation of due process, an alien must prove that he was deprived of liberty without notice or an opportunity to respond and that he was substantially prejudiced by the alleged error. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1299 (11th Cir. 2015). Maravilla did not dispute that he was removable and instead 2 Case: 15-14438 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 3 of 3 applied for withholding of removal. Maravilla argues that he “did not have actual physical possession of the Notice” until three days before a response was due, but he failed to request an extension of time to respond despite being informed of that right in the notice. And Maravilla cannot prove that he was prejudiced by the delay. Maravilla acknowledges that “he does not know where he was born” and he fails to identify any evidence that would have changed the outcome of his proceeding. We deny this part of Maravilla’s petition. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. 3
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.
