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:T466,MEMORANDUM Reginald Akai Nettey, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review. Nettey contends that the IJ violated his right to due process by failing to thoroughly inquire into his case to determine if he qualified for any forms of relief, including relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). His contention fails because before the IJ, Nettey stated that he did not fear returning to Ghana, nor has Nettey presented any basis for a CAT claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). Nettey’s remaining contention is unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T498,

MEMORANDUM

Reginald Akai Nettey, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Nettey contends that the IJ violated his right to due process by failing to thoroughly inquire into his case to determine if he qualified for any forms of relief, including relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). His contention fails because before the IJ, Nettey stated that he did not fear returning to Ghana, nor has Nettey presented any basis for a CAT claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Nettey’s remaining contention is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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