ESTRADA GUTIERREZ v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Salomon Estrada Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision pretermitting his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. 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. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The agency properly denied Estrada Gutierrez's applications, where Estrada Gutierrez failed to establish that his conviction under California Health & Safety Code section 11366.5(a) is not a controlled substance violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v. Wilkinson, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 754, 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), and which precludes him from establishing good moral character for voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1229c(b)(1)(B).

Estrada Gutierrez's contention that the agency violated his right to due process in pretermitting his applications for relief fails. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.