Gabriel Fuentes-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 475 F. App'x 238 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL ALEJANDRO FUENTES- No. 10-72384
RODRIGUEZ,
Agency No. A075-505-832
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Alejandro Fuentes-Rodriguez, 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 denying his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law, including due
process claims. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Fuentes-Rodriguez
did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). In addition, he was ineligible for
voluntary departure due to his previous grant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Fuentes-Rodriguez did not establish a
due process violation by the IJ. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
We lack jurisdiction to review Fuentes-Rodriguez’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim because he failed to raise it before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review
contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-72384