Oscar Jesus Rodriguez-Moreno v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR JESUS RODRIGUEZ-MORENO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72272
Agency No. A201-184-100
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Jesus Rodriguez-Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying 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
OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72272
Rodriguez-Moreno’s contentions that the agency failed to consider his
arguments on appeal, violated due process by mischaracterizing or failing to
consider evidence, and failed to conduct a future-oriented analysis are not
supported by the record, and do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke
jurisdiction over the agency’s hardship determmination. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or
constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s
discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424
F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must
have some possible validity.” (citation omitted)); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d
1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n alien attempting to establish that the Board
violated his right to due process by failing to consider relevant evidence must
overcome the presumption that it did review the evidence.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Moreno’s unexhausted
contention that he was denied a full and fair hearing before the IJ. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --