Jose Guadalupe Lizarraga- Cambrero v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE LIZARRAGA-
CAMBRERO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73941
Agency No. A206-784-486
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Guadalupe Lizarraga-Cambrero, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
* 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 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73941
§ 1252. We review de novo due process claims. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967,
971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny in part, dismiss in part, and grant in part the petition
for review.
Lizarraga-Cambrero establishes no error in the BIA’s administrative closure
determination, where he did not request administrative closure before the IJ. See
Matter of Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. & N. Dec. 567, 570 n.2 (BIA 1996) (en banc)
(holding that issues not raised before the IJ are waived). Accordingly, his due
process contention fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lizarraga-Cambrero’s unexhausted
contention regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. See Tijani v. Holder, 628
F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not
presented in administrative proceedings before the BIA).
The BIA did not have the benefit of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105
(2018), which held that a notice to appear that does not specify the time and date of
the hearing does not trigger the stop-time rule, when it denied cancellation of
removal. Thus, we remand for further proceedings consistent with that disposition.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part,
GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --