
    Andres Ramon FRANCISCO-SALVADOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70298.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 3, 2014.
    Filed Aug. 28, 2014.
    Andres Ramon Francisco-Salvador, Gadsden, AL, pro se.
    Nicolette Glazer, Law Offices of Larry R. Glazer, Century City, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Kathryn Mckinney, Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial, Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andres Ramon Francisco-Salvador petitions for review of the. decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding Francisco-Salvador removable. The BIA rejected Francisco-Salvador’s argument that his due process rights were violated, finding that Francisco-Salvador had not demonstrated error and could not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged procedural errors in his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo “[wjhether an immigration proceeding violates an alien’s due process rights,” Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009), and deny the petition.

Francisco-Salvador’s claim that his statutory right to counsel under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) was violated in the removal proceedings fails because Francisco-Salvador “knowingly and voluntarily” waived that right when he appeared at the hearing without an attorney after the immigration judge had continued the proceedings to allow him to obtain counsel. See Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir.2008).

Francisco-Salvador’s other claims of procedural error also fail to establish due process violations because he has not demonstrated prejudice. See Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 495 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Francisco-Salvador’s arguments regarding the immigration judge’s failure to inform him of the government’s burden of proof, sua sponte amendment of the notice to appear, and failure to apprise him of all possible avenues for relief, indicate only that the proceedings would have been different, but do not present a plausible scenario in which the outcome of those proceedings would have been different. See id. (“To show prejudice, the petitioner must present ‘plausible scenarios in which the outcome of the proceedings would have been different’ if a more elaborate process were provided.” (quoting Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th Cir.1998))).

We also decline Francisco-Salvador’s request to remand to the BIA in light of Matter of Avetisyan, 25.1. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012). Because Francisco-Salvador did not request administrative closure, Avetisyan is irrelevant to the outcome of his removal proceedings or BIA appeal.

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