Ignacio Gutierrez Aguirre v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO ALBERTO GUTIERREZ No. 15-71291
AGUIRRE,
Agency No. A095-720-233
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Alberto Gutierrez Aguirre, 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 cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
claims of due process violations and questions of law. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Gutierrez
Aguirre did not merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. See Ridore
v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). Gutierrez Aguirre’s contention that
the BIA fully adopted the IJ’s decision and thus adopted any alleged errors is not
supported by the record, and thus does not invoke our jurisdiction. See Arteaga-
DeAlvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730, 736 (9th Cir. 2012) (alien must present a
colorable claim to invoke jurisdiction over a discretionary determination).
In light of this determination, we need not, and the BIA was not required to,
address whether the IJ correctly determined that Gutierrez Aguirre was convicted
of a crime involving moral turpitude or properly analyzed good moral character.
See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538; Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir.
2010) (this court’s review is limited to the grounds actually relied upon by the
BIA). Accordingly, the BIA did not violate due process in declining to address
these contentions. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a
violation of rights and prejudice.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-71291