Miguel Sanchez-Chacolla v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL SANCHEZ-CHACOLLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71126
Agency No. A097-340-184
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Sanchez-Chacolla, 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 denying pre-conclusion voluntary
departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71126 2
claims of due process violations. Rojas v. Holder, 704 F.3d 792, 794 (9th Cir.
2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Sanchez-Chacolla’s
request for pre-conclusion voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B);
Rojas, 704 F.3d at 794.
Sanchez-Chacolla’s claim that the IJ exhibited bias or prejudice during his
removal proceedings is not supported by the record. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508
F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007).
Contrary to Sanchez-Chacolla’s contention, the BIA’s decision adequately
addressed his claim that his due process rights were violated. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an
exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --