
    Lucio REYES MAZON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70562.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 21, 2010.
    Lucio Reyes Mazon, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    OIL, John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department Of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lucio Reyes Mazon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations, Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 843 (9th Cir.2003) and we review de novo due process claims, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

We agree that Reyes Mazon has not met his burden to establish that he was the beneficiary of an approved visa petition; a requirement for his application for adjustment of status to proceed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(B); cf. Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 843.

Contrary to Reyes Mazon’s contention, the BIA properly concluded that the IJ did not violate due process by not informing Reyes Mazon of his eligibility for a Section 212(h) waiver, because the waiver was not applicable to the ground of inadmissibility with which Reyes Mazon was charged. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Reyes Mazon does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that he is statutorily ineligible to show good moral character so that contention is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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