Jose Antonio Guillen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO GUILLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71194
Agency No. A070-708-042
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Guillen, 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 (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his
application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
* 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
JUL 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71194
We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Guillen failed to establish that his
conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) was not a controlled
substance violation that renders him ineligible for adjustment of status. See
8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1255(i)(2)(A); Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct.
754, 758, 766 (2021) (an applicant for relief from removal cannot establish
eligibility where a conviction record is inconclusive as to which elements of a
divisible statute formed the offense); Tejeda v. Barr, 960 F.3d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir.
2020) (holding California Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) is divisible).
Guillen’s contention that the IJ violated due process in cancelling an
evidentiary hearing fails because Guillen has not shown prejudice. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --