Mario Garcia-Maya v. Jefferson Sessions , 695 F. App'x 281 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO GARCIA-MAYA, No. 15-73142
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-958-832
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mario Garcia-Maya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings
*
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).
and review de novo questions of law. Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder, 633 F.3d
1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Maya
failed to establish the requisite ten years continuous physical presence for
cancellation of removal, where he stated in his application for cancellation of
removal and testified that he first entered the United States in 2002, but he was
served with a notice to appear fewer than ten years later. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A) (to qualify for cancellation of removal, alien must show ten years
continuous physical presence in the United States); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)
(continuous physical presence period ends when alien is served with a notice to
appear).
The agency did not err in declining to address other eligibility factors for
cancellation of removal, where the continuous physical presence requirement is
dispositive. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (agency
not required to make findings on issues unnecessary to the result reached).
To the extent Garcia-Maya challenges the agency’s denial of administrative
closure, we lack jurisdiction to review that denial. See Diaz-Covarrubias v.
Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 2009). We also lack jurisdiction to
consider Garcia-Maya’s unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See
2 15-73142
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to
review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-73142