Jose Arias Jovel v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 501 F. App'x 708 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ADALBERTO ARIAS JOVEL, Nos. 10-72105
10-73444
Petitioner,
Agency No. A092-142-072
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Adalberto Arias Jovel, a
native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his
*
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).
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in
part, and deny in part, the petitions for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Arias Jovel’s challenge to the discretionary
denial of his application for cancellation of removal. See Mendez-Castro v.
Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009). The agency did not err in admitting
evidence regarding Arias Jovel’s criminal history. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,
339 F.3d 814, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (the sole test for admission of evidence in
immigration proceedings is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is
fundamentally fair). Arias Jovel’s contention that the BIA’s analysis was
inadequate also fails. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005)
(en banc) (Burbano affirmance signifies that the BIA has conducted an
independent review of the record and has determined that its conclusions are the
same as those articulated by the IJ).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arias Jovel’s motion to
reopen on the ground that he failed to establish his conviction as no longer valid
for immigration purposes. Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2011) (a
conviction is “final” for immigration purposes where a judgment of guilt has been
entered and a punishment imposed, even where a direct appeal or collateral attack
is pending). We lack jurisdiction to consider Arias Jovel’s contention that the plea
2 10-72105 / 10-73444
to his underlying criminal conviction was vacated because he failed to raise this
issue before the BIA and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 10-72105 / 10-73444