
    Norberto GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72339.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
    Alan R. Diamante, Law Offices of Alan R. Diamante, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Norberto Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo due process claims, Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not violate Garcia’s right to due process by failing to consider a diagnostic letter. See id. at 1095-96 (“[A]n alien attempting to establish that the B[IA] violated his right to due process by failing to consider relevant evidence must overcome the presumption that it did review the evidence”).

The agency also did not violate Garcia’s right to due process when it declined to issue a subpoena to compel the author of the diagnostic letter to testify. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (empowering the IJ with authority to set and extend time limits for the filing of documents and requiring the IJ to deem waived any document not filed within the time set).

In light of this disposition, we need not address Garcia’s remaining contentions. See Mendez-Alearaz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir.2006) (declining to reach nondispositive challenges to a BIA order).

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