Jose Rodriguez-Rodriguez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70622
Agency No. A200-245-860
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Rodriguez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny 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
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70622
Rodriguez-Rodriguez has waived any challenge to the agency’s hardship
determination. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues
not raised in an opening brief are waived).
Because the agency’s hardship determination is dispositive, we do not reach
Rodriguez-Rodriguez’s contentions regarding the agency’s continuous physical
presence and related credibility determinations. See Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621
F.3d 941, 942 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy any one of the four requirements in
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) is fatal to a cancellation application); Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide
issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --