Manuel Escamilla-Dominguez v. Jefferson Sessions , 698 F. App'x 374 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL ESCAMILLA-DOMINGUEZ, No. 16-70114
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-698-131
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Escamilla-Dominguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 constitutional claims. 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 Escamilla-
Dominguez did not establish the required continuous physical presence for
cancellation of removal, where Escamilla-Dominguez testified to a different entry
date than the date stated on his application, the evidence he submitted regarding his
entry date was contradictory, and he provided no other corroborating evidence of
an entry date that allowed him to meet the continuous physical presence
requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Hernandez-Mancilla, 633 F.3d at
1184 (under the deferential substantial evidence standard, the court will uphold the
agency’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Escamilla-Dominguez’s contention that the
agency violated due process by making factual findings contrary to the record. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process
challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
Escamilla-Dominguez’s contention that the agency prevented him from
presenting evidence is not supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s unexhausted contentions
regarding credibility. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
2 16-70114
(“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 16-70114