
    Marcelo LUNA-MASTACHE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73824.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
    Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar A. Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marcelo Luna-Mastache, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

Luna-Mastache contends that the government’s evidence of his alienage should not have been admitted at his removal hearing because it was protected by the confidentiality provision set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(c)(5)(A)(i). Contrary to his contention, the BIA correctly concluded that the evidence was not protected because it was drawn from Luna-Mastache’s employment verification documents, and was not “information furnished by” Luna-Mastache in his legalization application. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(c)(5)(A)(i); see also id. § 1101(a)(3) (“The term ‘alien’ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”).

Luna-Mastache’s contention that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) violates due process and separation of powers by impinging on his fundamental right to family unity is foreclosed by De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.2009).

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