
    Gerardo LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 7, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 17, 2014.
    Tucker Sandler, Law Offices of Tucker H. Sandler, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Charles S. Greene, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, 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: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Gerardo Lopez petitions this Court for review of his final order of removal. We exercise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) and deny the petition.

Lopez claims that the proceedings underlying his final order of removal were conducted in violation of his due-process rights. First, he claims that the immigration judge improperly admitted untimely submitted evidence of his prior conviction. Second, he claims that the immigration judge improperly issued her opinion without waiting for a scheduled hearing on the admissibility of Lopez’s conviction records.

Even if Lopez’s due-process claims had merit, he fails to show prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000). The minute order of his prior guilty plea and conviction coupled with the criminal complaint irrefutably establish that Lopez was convicted of a drug-related offense. And Lopez does not contest the conviction or whether the conviction is for a drug-related offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). He is thus ineligible for relief from deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A) (providing that the Attorney General may adjust the status of an alien only when he is admissible).

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