Vladimir Vladimirovich Manzenko v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH
MANZENKO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71516
Agency No. A071-139-180
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Vladimir Vladimirovich Manzenko, a native of the U.S.S.R. and citizen of
Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders
dismissing his appeals from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying
* 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
JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71516
cancellation of removal and an IJ’s order denying his motions to reopen and
remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of
due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Manzenko’s contention that the agency violated due process by denying him
the opportunity to submit new evidence is not supported, where the BIA
considered the proffered evidence in its de novo review of the IJ’s discretionary
denial of cancellation of removal. See id. (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a
petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”); Singh v.
Holder, 591 F.3d 1190, 1199 (9th Cir. 2010) (any error by the IJ was rendered
harmless by the BIA’s de novo review of the issue).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --