Juan Laborin-Ledes v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN LABORIN-LEDES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-186
Agency No.
A090-837-421
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Laborin-Ledes, 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 (“IJ”) decision finding him removable. 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. Simeonov v.
* 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
MAY 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-186
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Laborin-Ledes’s contention that the IJ erred in admitting into evidence
untimely submissions from the Department of Homeland Security fails because
the IJ has wide latitude to control filing deadlines for the admission of evidence.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (2019) (“The Immigration Judge may set and extend
time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses
thereto, if any.”); see also Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 74, 83 (BIA 2020)
(“After an Immigration Judge has set a firm deadline for filing an application
for relief, the respondent’s opportunity to file the application may be deemed
waived . . . if the deadline passes without submission of the application and no
good cause for noncompliance has been shown.” (emphasis added)).
Laborin-Ledes’s contention that the IJ violated his right to due process by
admitting into evidence the late-filed documents fails because he failed to show
error and prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --