J. Melgoza-Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 479 F. App'x 96 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
J. JESUS MELGOZA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. No. 10-72160
Jesus Melgoza,
Agency No. A035-896-189
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
J. Jesus Melgoza-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
*
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 lack jurisdiction to review the order of removal against Melgoza-
Sanchez because his December 23, 2005, conviction under California Health and
Safety Code § 11377(a) renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189-90 (9th
Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s “pleading stage” admission that his conviction involved
methamphetamine is sufficient to establish his removability).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Melgoza-Sanchez’s challenge to the denial
of his application for cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. See
Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Melgoza-
Sanchez’s contention that the agency abused its discretion in weighing his equities
is not a colorable constitutional claim or question of law sufficient to restore the
court’s jurisdiction. See Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.
2006) (per curiam) (contention that agency “fail[ed] to properly weigh the
equities” is merely “an abuse of discretion challenge re-characterized as an alleged
due process violation”). His contention that the government failed to prove he was
ineligible for cancellation of removal is not colorable because he had the burden of
proof to establish his eligibility for relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Melgoza-Sanchez’s remaining contentions
because he did not exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
2 10-72160
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Melgoza-Sanchez’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
3 10-72160