NELSON LOZANO-CARRANZA V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 16-74005 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 13 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NELSON URIEL LOZANO-CARRANZA, AKA Nelson Uriel Lozano, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-74005 Agency No. A205-713-163 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: BEA, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Nelson Lozano-Carranza petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. We deny the petition. * 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). Lozano-Carranza is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without inspection. He appeared pro se in his removal hearing despite previously having been granted a continuance to obtain counsel. He waived his right to an attorney, conceded removability, and applied for no relief. Lozano-Carranza argues he was denied Due Process because the IJ allegedly failed to develop the record, explain relevant procedures, or advise on the need for corroborating evidence to establish eligibility for relief. But once the IJ determined—on the record—that Lozano-Carranza was not apparently eligible for any form of relief, Lozano-Carranza had “no blanket right to be advised of the possibility of asylum or other relief.” Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2008). First, Lozano-Carranza did not testify that he had ever been “harmed in Mexico” or feared harm, so he did not qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. Second, LozanoCarranza testified to being incarcerated for two and a half years, so he failed to show “good moral character” to qualify for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Carranza’s motion for a remand because he did not include an application for asylum in his motion, nor did he establish prima facie eligibility for asylum relief in his declaration. RomeroRuiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds 2 by Cheneau v. Garland, 997 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2021). PETITION DENIED. 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.