OSCAR ROJAS-GALVEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73362 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR ROJAS-GALVEZ, Petitioner, No. 13-73362 Agency No. A070-563-284 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Oscar Rojas-Galvez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) final administrative removal order finding Rojas-Galvez removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, after conducting an expedited removal proceeding pursuant to 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1228(b). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. Rojas-Galvez does not challenge DHS’s finding that he is removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Rojas-Galvez’s due process claims fail, where the record indicates he was advised of his rights but refused to sign the Form I-851, Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Order, see Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying a presumption of regularity regarding the official acts of public officers), and where he is statutorily barred from adjustment of status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)(5) (“No alien described in this section [pertaining to the expedited removal of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies] shall be eligible for any relief from removal that the Attorney General may grant in the Attorney General’s discretion.”); 8 U.S.C.§ 1255(a) (adjustment of status is discretionary); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-73362

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.