Mateo Sanchez-Martinez v. Jefferson Sessions , 693 F. App'x 600 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATEO SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ, AKA No. 14-72432
Mateo Martinez-Sanchez,
Agency No. A078-259-408
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Mateo Sanchez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for
*
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).
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that a waiver of inadmissibility under
section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(h), is not available to waive the effect of the conviction that rendered
Sanchez-Martinez ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Guerrero-Roque v.
Lynch, 845 F.3d 940, 942 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e hold that the waiver authority
provided in INA § 212(h) does not nullify a conviction that disqualifies an alien
from cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b).”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez-Martinez’ unexhausted contentions
that the IJ abused his discretion or denied due process by not granting a further
continuance. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the agency).
We deny Sanchez-Martinez’ motion for judicial notice and to supplement
the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 11) and grant Respondent’s motion to
strike exhibits from Sanchez-Martinez’ opening brief (Docket Entry No. 13). See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (“[A] court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the
2 14-72432
administrative record on which the order of removal is based[.]”); Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record
through a motion to reopen with the agency).
We deny Sanchez-Martinez’ request for attorney’s fees as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72432