Rigoberto Contreras v. Loretta E. Lynch , 650 F. App'x 936 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO EDUARDO CONTRERAS, No. 14-73667
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-718-193
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Eduardo Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Delgado-
*
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).
Hernandez v. Holder, 697 F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th Cir. 2012), and we deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
To the extent Contreras contends that the agency erred in pretermitting his
application for cancellation of removal because he was seeking post-conviction
relief, his contention fails because the conviction was final for immigration
purposes. See Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2011).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Contreras’s challenges to the agency’s
determination that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on
his conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a), and his
contentions that he mistakenly withdrew his asylum application and was unable to
refute the charge of removability because he was unrepresented, where he failed to
exhaust these claims before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080
(9th Cir. 2010).
In light of these dispositive conclusions, we do not reach Contreras’s
contentions regarding hardship and discretion. 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 DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-73667