
    Oscar ROJAS-GALVEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73362.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Jessica Dawgert, Trial, Oil, 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: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Rojas-Galvez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) final administrative removal order finding Rojas-Galvez removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, after conducting an expedited removal proceeding pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Rojas-Galvez does not challenge DHS’s finding that he is removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B).

Rojas-Galvez’s due process claims fail, where the record indicates he was advised of his rights but refused to sign the Form 1-851, Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Order, see Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir.2007) (applying a presumption of regularity regarding the official acts of public officers), and where he is statutorily barred from adjustment of status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)(5) (“No alien described in this section [pertaining to the expedited removal of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies] shall be eligible for any relief from removal that the Attorney General may grant in the Attorney General’s discretion.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (adjustment of status is discretionary); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

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