
    Raul SAINZ-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72698
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Raul Sainz-Rivera, Pro Se
    OIL, Nancy Ellen Friedman, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Trial Attorneys, DOJ— 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: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raul Sainz-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Sainz-Rivera’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights by not allowing him to present evidence of his good moral character or by exhibiting bias toward Sainz-Rivera. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

Sainz-Rivera does not otherwise challenge the agency’s denial of relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth'Circuit Rule 36-3.
     