Paul Manalastas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL ANGELO GAPASIN No. 10-71653
MANALASTAS, a.k.a. Paul Angelo
Manalastas, Agency No. A045-829-221
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013 **
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Paul Angelo Gapasin Manalastas, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from the removal order of an immigration judge (“IJ”). Our jurisdiction
*
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).
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Vilchez v.
Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s removal order because
Manalastas’s pleadings before the IJ establish that he is removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) due to his conviction for possession of a controlled substance
under California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)
(eliminating jurisdiction to review removal orders predicated on controlled-
substance convictions); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.
2011) (per curiam) (holding that a petitioner’s pleading-stage admissions and
concessions may be sufficient to establish removability). Accordingly, we need
not consider Manalastas’s contention that the record of conviction is inconclusive.
See Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining to
reach nondispositive challenges to a BIA order).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Manalastas’s challenges to the agency’s
denial of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure as a matter of discretion.
See Vilchez, 682 F.3d at 1200-01 (cancellation of removal); Esquival-Garcia v.
Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010) (voluntary departure). Manalastas’s
contention that the IJ violated his right to due process by failing to provide a
reasoned analysis of his eligibility for voluntary departure does not alter this
2 10-71653
conclusion. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005)
(“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process
violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our
jurisdiction.”).
Finally, because the record does not support Manalastas’s contentions that
the IJ violated his right to due process by failing to develop the administrative
record and failing to remain neutral, these claims are not sufficiently colorable to
invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See id. (“To be colorable
in this context, the alleged violation need not be substantial, but the claim must
have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see
also Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (identifying
no deprivation of a full and fair hearing where the IJ reviewed all the record
evidence, heard the petitioner’s arguments and testimony, and directly questioned
the petitioner before making an ineligibility determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
3 10-71653