Abelardo Adriano Cangco v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABELARDO ADRIANO CANGCO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71945
Agency No. A041-163-014
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Abelardo Adriano Cangco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) discretionary denial of a waiver of fraud
or misrepresentation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
JUN 21 2016
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 --

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and we review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088,
1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding or err in agreeing with
the IJ that Cangco is removable as charged in the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) as an
alien, who by fraud or willful misrepresentation, procured a visa or admission into
the United States, where substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that
Cangco had engaged in fraud in obtaining his lawful permanent resident status and
the IJ ordered Cangco removed on the charges contained in the NTA. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). To the extent the IJ may have erred in addressing removability
only in the order and not in the decision, Cangco failed to demonstrate any
prejudice resulting from such error. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 523-24
(9th Cir. 2006).
The agency was not required to determine whether Cangco was statutorily
eligible for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), where it determined that it
would deny such an application in the exercise of discretion. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to make
findings on non-dispositive issues).
13-71945 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of a waiver
under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), and Cangco does not raise a colorable question of
law or due process claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1156, 1157-58 (9th Cir.
2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-71945 3

-- 3 of 3 --