Jose Bartolo-Vasquez v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE BARTOLO-VASQUEZ, No. 15-72010
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-386-269
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Bartolo-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination.
Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo
due process claims. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bartolo-
Vasquez failed to present sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence to
establish the requisite continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(4)(B), 1229b(b)(1)(A).
We are not persuaded by, and the record does not support, Bartolo-
Vasquez’s contention that the agency erred or violated due process by failing to
consider his personal circumstances in its continuous physical presence
determination. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the
agency must consider the issues raised and express its decision “in terms sufficient
to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely
reacted” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Almaghzar v. Gonzales,
457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner “had ample opportunity to present his
case, and the record as a whole does not suggest that the IJ did not conduct the
hearing with an open mind”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Bartolo-Vasquez’s unexhausted contentions
relating to the IJ’s alleged failure to notify him of the need to provide corroborative
2 15-72010
evidence. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack
jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72010