Cornelius Sierhuis v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CORNELIUS CLEMENS SIERHUIS, No. 13-73105
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-157-031
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Cornelius Clemens Sierhuis, a native and citizen of Canada, 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
*
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).
review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Vilchez v. Holder, 682
F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal, except in the case of colorable constitutional claims and
questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Vilchez, 682 F.3d at
1198.
Sierhuis’ due process claims fail, because the record supports the agency’s
credibility determinations and evidentiary rulings, and does not support Sierhuis’
contention that the IJ was biased or that Sierhuis was otherwise denied a full and
fair hearing. See de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 394 (9th Cir. 1997)
(adverse credibility determination supported by specific, cogent reasons); Vargas-
Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Where an alien is
given a full and fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, to prepare an
application for . . . relief, and to present testimony and other evidence in support of
the application, he or she has been provided with due process.”). In addition,
Sierhuis has not demonstrated that additional testimony or other evidence may
have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967,
2 13-73105
971 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring that petitioner establish prejudice to prevail on a due
process challenge).
Lastly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Sierhuis’ remaining contentions
regarding details pertaining to his ex-wife’s testimony because he failed to exhaust
them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 13-73105