Romero-Avila
Romero-Avila v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Petitioner, Fernando Antonio Romero-Avila, challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(l)-(2) and we affirm.
Romero-Avila claims that he was denied due process because he was not given proper notice before being ordered deported in absentia. The BIA declined to reconsider its decision not to reopen Romero-Avila’s deportation proceedings on this basis. We review claims of due process violations de novo. Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir.2004).
A person attempting to reopen deportation proceedings on due process grounds must show that his due process rights were -violated and that he was substantially prejudiced by the violation. Larita-Martinez v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). Romero-Avila was fifteen when he was personally issued an order to show cause, which detailed where and when his deportation hearing was to take place. The pertinent regulation only require special notice procedures for those under the age of fourteen. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5a(c) (1994). We find no violation of due process where the Service complied with the…