Jose Garcia-Renteria v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 548 F. App'x 489 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS GARCIA-RENTERIA, No. 11-70454
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-661-562
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Garcia-Renteria, 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.
*
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).
We review de novo constitutional claims. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th
Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Because the BIA denied Garcia-Renteria’s application for cancellation of
removal as a matter of discretion, our jurisdiction is limited to colorable legal or
constitutional challenges to review the BIA’s denial. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.
2009) (per curiam).
To the extent Garcia-Renteria contends that the BIA violated due process by
upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on his demeanor,
without the IJ giving him an opportunity to explain his awkwardness and giggling
during his testimony, Garcia-Renteria’s contention is unpersuasive. As the BIA
noted, the IJ relied on factors other than his demeanor in making the adverse
credibility determination.
Garcia-Renteria’s contention that the IJ erred in admitting evidence
regarding Garcia-Renteria’s history of arrests is unavailing. See
Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir. 1994) (considering
petitioner’s arrest in the context of his request for discretionary relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 11-70454