NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APOLINAR HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, AKA No. 19-73015 Apolinar Cruz, Agency No. A200-248-408 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Apolinar Hernandez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Hernandez-Cruz does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Hernandez-Cruz’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.

Hernandez-Cruz’s claim that the use of a Spanish interpreter in his removal proceedings violated his due process rights fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (a petitioner must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); see also Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 n.8 (9th Cir. 2018) (rejecting due process claim based on translation issues where a review of the transcript did not evince translation issues).

Hernandez-Cruz’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 19-73015