Ramiro Paz-Puluc v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMIRO PAZ-PULUC and LETICIA No. 14-73126
PAZ,
Agency Nos. A071-585-393
Petitioners, A097-854-044
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Paz-Puluc, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and Leticia Paz, a
native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual determination regarding continuous physical presence. Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did
not demonstrate the ten years of continuous physical presence required for
cancellation of removal, where petitioners provided insufficient documentary
evidence. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), 1229a(c)(4)(B)-(C).
To the extent petitioners raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
we lack jurisdiction to review that unexhausted claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see
also Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[Section] 1252(d)(1)
mandates exhaustion and therefore generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in
administrative proceedings below.”)
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the BIA did not err in declining to
address non-dispositive issues. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”
(citation and quotation marks omitted)).
2 14-73126
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73126