ELMER BOLANOS-MADRID V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-71469 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELMER WILFREDO BOLANOSMADRID, a.k.a. Elmer Wilfredo Bolanos, a.k.a. William Bolanos, No. 12-71469 Agency No. A044-025-218 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Elmer Wilfredo Bolanos-Madrid, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision ordering him removed. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The IJ did not err by failing to advise Bolanos-Madrid that he could apply for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture because Bolanos-Madrid indicated he did not fear returning to El Salvador for any reason. See Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 2008) (there is no requirement that an alien be advised of the availability of relief where there is no apparent eligibility for it); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We reject Bolanos-Madrid s contention that the IJ was required to take administrative notice of general gang violence in El Salvador and advise him of the availability of relief on this basis. Thus, Bolanos-Madrid s due process claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-71469

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.