Eliseo Coronado-Galvan v. Merrick Garland

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 25, 2023
Docket20-73076
StatusUnpublished

This text of Eliseo Coronado-Galvan v. Merrick Garland (Eliseo Coronado-Galvan v. Merrick Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eliseo Coronado-Galvan v. Merrick Garland, (9th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELISEO CORONADO-GALVAN, No. 20-73076

Petitioner, Agency No. A209-809-131

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Eliseo Coronado-Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process

violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535

(9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

Coronado-Galvan’s claim the agency violated due process by denying him

the opportunity to testify fails for lack of prejudice. See Padilla-Martinez v.

Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a

petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

Because Coronado-Galvan does not challenge the agency’s denial of

asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection, we do not consider these

issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 20-73076

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jose Lopez-Vasquez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
706 F.3d 1072 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Jesus Padilla-Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
770 F.3d 825 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eliseo Coronado-Galvan v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eliseo-coronado-galvan-v-merrick-garland-ca9-2023.