Jorge Humberto Mendez-Gonzalez v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-14704
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A206-413-511
JORGE HUMBERTO MENDEZ-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 17, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-14704 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Jorge Humberto Mendez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of an order that expedited his removal from the United States as an alien
convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1228(b), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Mendez-Gonzalez argues that his prior conviction is not an aggravated felony and
that the Department of Homeland Security violated his right to due process during
his expedited removal proceedings. We dismiss in part and deny in part Mendez-
Gonzalez’s petition.
We lack jurisdiction to review the finding that Mendez-Gonzalez’s prior
conviction is an aggravated felony. Mendez-Gonzalez concedes that he never
contested the classification of his prior conviction as an aggravated felony,
although his notice of removal stated that he had ten days to respond and could
obtain an extension of time for good cause. “[A]bsent a cognizable excuse or
exception,” we “lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review
unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies.” Amaya–
Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We dismiss
this part of Mendez-Gonzalez’s petition.
The Department did not violate Mendez-Gonzalez’s right to due process. To
establish a violation of due process, an alien must prove that he was deprived of
liberty without notice or an opportunity to respond and that he was substantially
prejudiced by the alleged error. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1299
Case: 16-14704 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(11th Cir. 2015). Mendez-Gonzalez argues that he could not challenge the notice
of removal because it was written in and explained to him in English, but we
presume that the Department complied with a regulation requiring it to “provide
. . . a written translation . . . or explain the contents of the Notice of Intent . . . in a
language that the alien understands,” 8 C.F.R. § 238.1(b)(2)(v). The record
contains no evidence that Mendez-Gonzalez requested an interpreter, despite
having received such assistance in two criminal proceedings. We deny this part of
Mendez-Gonzalez’s petition.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
Case: 16-14704 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --