Jairo Oswaldo Roche-Mejia v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIRO OSWALDO ROCHE-MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73702
Agency No. A070-958-620
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jairo Oswaldo Roche-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
FILED
MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Roche-Mejia’s contention that he
established past persecution and fears future persecution on account of imputed
political opinion because he did not raise it to the BIA. See Vargas v. INS, 831
F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA
constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives
this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.”). Roche-Mejia does not otherwise
challenge the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Issues not raised and argued in the
opening brief are deemed waived.”).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Roche-Mejia’s contention regarding
alleged due process violations relating to the hearing transcript because he failed to
raise it to the BIA. See Vargas, 832 F.3d at 907-08.
Finally, with respect to Roche-Mejia’s cancellation of removal claim, we
lack jurisdiction to consider his challenge to the agency’s hardship determination.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir.
2008) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review BIA’s discretionary determination
that an applicant for cancellation of removal failed to establish that his removal
10-73702 2

-- 2 of 3 --

would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to U.S. citizen
relatives).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
10-73702 3

-- 3 of 3 --