NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR ACOSTA-OCHOA, No. 14-72843

Petitioner, Agency No. A095-795-786

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Hector Acosta-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

* 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). 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 properly denied cancellation of removal, where Acosta-Ochoa

failed to meet his burden of proof to establish he was not convicted of a controlled

substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida

v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 758, 766 (2021) (an inconclusive conviction record is

insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of proof to show eligibility for relief).

The agency did not err or violate due process by relying on uncertified

conviction documents. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.41(d); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error 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 14-72843