Jose Jaime Ibarra-Morales v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JAIME IBARRA-MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71842
Agency No. A075-743-569
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jaime Ibarra-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to terminate. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law
* 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).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71842
and constitutional claims. Roman-Suaste v. Holder, 766 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.
2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ibarra-Morales’s contention that his
judgment of conviction is facially invalid, because this claim functions as an
impermissible collateral attack upon his state court conviction. See Ramirez-
Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner
could not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a
BIA decision).
Contrary to Ibarra-Morales’ contention, the BIA did not mischaracterize his
motion to terminate as a collateral attack on his state court conviction or ignore or
misapply relevant law. Accordingly, Ibarra-Morales has failed to show the agency
violated due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an
alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --