22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4da,MEMORANDUM Former federal detainee Milaudi Kar-boau appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 , alleging violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Karboau’s action because Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations does not create a private right of action. See Cornejo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir.2007) (“Article 36 does not create judicially enforceable rights.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to amend because the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50c,

MEMORANDUM

Former federal detainee Milaudi Kar-boau appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 , alleging violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Karboau’s action because Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations does not create a private right of action. See Cornejo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir.2007) (“Article 36 does not create judicially enforceable rights.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to amend because the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.