Raul Roque v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RAUL ROQUE, No. 14-70408
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-523-060
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Raul Roque, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
*
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).
process violations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Roque failed to show the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative for cancellation
of removal. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not consider Roque’s contentions regarding good moral character because
his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1);
Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538.
Roque’s contentions that the BIA violated due process by disregarding
evidence of hardship and in not providing a reasoned explanation for its hardship
determination are not supported by the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220
F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioners must overcome presumption that
agency reviewed all evidence); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (the BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention” (citation and
quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 14-70408