Salomon Estrada Gutierrez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALOMON ESTRADA GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73766
Agency No. A205-323-700
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Salomon Estrada Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his applications for cancellation of
removal and voluntary departure. 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
AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73766
We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency properly denied Estrada Gutierrez’s applications, where Estrada
Gutierrez failed to establish that his conviction under California Health & Safety
Code section 11366.5(a) is not a controlled substance violation that renders him
ineligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II),
1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 766 (2021) (an inconclusive
conviction record is insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of proof to show
eligibility for relief), and which precludes him from establishing good moral
character for voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1229c(b)(1)(B).
Estrada Gutierrez’s contention that the agency violated his right to due
process in pretermitting his applications for relief fails. See Padilla-Martinez, 770
F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate
both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --