Jose Cevallos-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 610 F. App'x 663 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALBERTO CEVALLOS- No. 13-70576
RODRIGUEZ, AKA Jose Alberto
Ceballos, AKA Jose Alberto Cevallo, Agency No. A095-733-040
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alberto Cevallos-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.
*
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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence
Cevallos-Rodriguez submitted with his motion to reopen does not establish a prima
facie case of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for the purposes of
cancellation of removal, where the evidence Cevallos-Rodriguez presented with his
motion concerned the same hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of
removal in his original removal proceedings. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If . . . the BIA determines that a motion to reopen
proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary
determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a
prima facie case for that relief, [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes our visiting
the merits, just as it would if the BIA had affirmed the [immigration judge] on
direct appeal.”).
Because the BIA’s determination that Cevallos-Rodriguez did not
demonstrate a prima facie case of the requisite hardship is dispositive, we do not
reach Cevallos-Rodriguez’ remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results they reach.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 13-70576