Oscar Gomez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 632 F. App'x 390 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ADAY GOMEZ, No. 14-72557
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-720-878
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Aday Gomez, 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”) order denying voluntary departure. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims.
*
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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
To the extent Gomez contends that the agency abused its discretion in
denying his application for voluntary departure, we lack jurisdiction to review that
discretionary determination. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i);
Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010).
We lack jurisdiction to review Gomez’ unexhausted contentions that the IJ
exhibited bias against him and prevented him from submitting evidence. See
Velasco-Cervantes v. Holder, 593 F.3d 975, 978 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on
other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc) (citation to legal authority, without presenting a corresponding argument in
either the BIA brief or notice of appeal, is “completely insufficient to put the BIA
on notice of the argument”). Accordingly, Gomez’ contention that the BIA
ignored his claim of IJ bias is without merit, where he failed to raise that
contention before the BIA.
To the extent Gomez contends the BIA erred or violated due process by
failing to consider his general due process claim, that contention is without merit.
Because the claim Gomez presented to the BIA was simply that the IJ violated due
process by abusing her discretion in denying his application for voluntary
2 14-72557
departure, the BIA’s determination that the IJ did not abuse her discretion in
denying voluntary departure was dispositive and sufficiently addressed Gomez’
claim.
Gomez’ general contention that the BIA did not provide sufficient reasoning
and detail in dismissing his appeal is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the
BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to
enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely
reacted.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-72557