Francisco Andrade-Vargas v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO ANDRADE-VARGAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73856
Agency No. A206-567-351
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Andrade-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
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. We dismiss the petition for review.
* 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).
FILED
MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73856
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Andrade-Vargas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of
law and constitutional claims, Andrade-Vargas has raised no such contention. See
id.
Andrade-Vargas contends the IJ failed to consider the hardship his children
would face in Mexico, due to general dangers and their lack of Spanish fluency.
We lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention, where Andrade-
Vargas and his witnesses previously testified that his children would remain in the
United States following his removal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080
(9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in the
petitioner’s administrative proceedings before the BIA).
To the extent Andrade-Vargas contends the IJ erred in denying his alleged
request for a continuance or administrative closure, we lack jurisdiction to consider
this unexhausted contention. Id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --