GONZALO FLORES, AKA Gonzalez Flores-Castaneda v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GONZALO FLORES, AKA Gonzalez
Flores-Castaneda,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73279
Agency No. A099-828-685
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2022**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and O’SCANNLAIN and GRABER, Circuit
Judges.
Gonzalo Flores petitions this Court to review Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his appeal claiming a due process violation by the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”). As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them
* 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
FEB 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
only as necessary to explain our decision. We deny the petition.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process in immigration proceedings.
See Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir. 1999). Flores was entitled
to a full and fair hearing of his claims and a reasonable opportunity to present his
evidence. See id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4). “As a general rule, an individual may
obtain relief for a due process violation only if he shows that . . . the violation
potentially affected the outcome of the immigration proceeding.” Gomez-Velazco
v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018).
Flores failed to do so. Contrary to his allegations, the BIA did not blindly
accept IJ’s potentially tainted conclusions. Instead, it reviewed the facts de novo.
Unlike the Immigration Judge, the Board credited Flores’s statements regarding his
employment history, his child support payments, and the potential hardship to his
third U.S. citizen child. Further, in making its discretionary determination, it
disregarded the rock-throwing incident and Petitioner’s subsequent voluntary
departure to Mexico. However, due to the long list of Flores’s brushes with the law
and his lack of rehabilitation, the Board denied relief and dismissed the appeal.
Neither did the IJ limit the evidence Flores was allowed to present at the
hearing. In arguing that IJ’s bias precluded him from introducing additional
evidence, Petitioner points to IJ’s statement that the parties should not focus on
hardship. However, that statement was made to the Government. The IJ explained

-- 2 of 3 --

3
that he had decided that Petitioner successfully showed hardship to qualifying
relatives and advised the parties to focus on discretion. If anything, the statement
favored Petitioner because it prevented the Government from introducing evidence
to support its case. In any event, Flores does not reveal exactly what evidence the
IJ precluded him from introducing, failing again to demonstrate prejudice.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --