Jose Martinez-Flores v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARTINEZ-FLORES, AKA Carlos No. 14-72980
Flores, AKA Omero Flores Martinez,
AKA Jose Flores-Rodriguez, AKA Carlos Agency No. A205-722-130
Martinez, AKA Homero Martinez, AKA
Jose Rodriguez Flores,
MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Martinez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
*
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).
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying relief from removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional
claims, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft,
395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Flores’ unexhausted challenge to
the IJ’s dispositive determination that Martinez-Flores failed to establish a nexus to
a protected ground for the purposes of withholding of removal. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the agency). Accordingly, we do not reach Martinez-Flores’ contentions regarding
past persecution.
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Flores’ unexhausted
contentions regarding Convention against Torture relief and his unexhausted
contention that the IJ violated due process by not advising him of possible
eligibility for voluntary departure. See id.
We deny, for failure to establish prejudice, Martinez-Flores’ contention that
the IJ violated due process by not advising him of possible eligibility for
2 14-72980
cancellation of removal. 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).
The BIA did not violate due process or abuse its discretion in declining to
remand for consideration of voluntary departure or cancellation of removal. See
id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-72980