ACOSTA OCHOA v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Acosta-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly denied cancellation of removal, where Acosta-Ochoa failed to meet his burden of proof to establish he was not convicted of a controlled substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v. Wilkinson, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 754, 758, 766, 209 L.Ed.2d 47 (2021) (an inconclusive conviction record is insufficient to meet applicant's burden of proof to show eligibility for relief).

The agency did not err or violate due process by relying on uncertified conviction documents. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.41(d); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.