Saul Martinez-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions , 695 F. App'x 246 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL MARTINEZ-SANTIAGO, No. 15-73358
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-150-313
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Saul Martinez-Santiago, 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 voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Ali v. Holder,
*
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).
637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
To the extent Martinez-Santiago contends the agency erred as a matter of
law in determining that he is statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure, this
contention fails because he was granted voluntary departure in 2011 after he was
found to be inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(c)
(voluntary departure is not permitted if the alien was previously permitted to
voluntarily depart after having been found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (alien has the burden of proof in
establishing eligibility for any requested benefit or privilege); see also Corro-
Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction
over challenges to the denial of voluntary departure is limited to constitutional
claims or questions of law).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Santiago’s unexhausted
contention that he was not advised that the previous grant of voluntary departure
would render him ineligible for voluntary departure in the future. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-73358