JAIME ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ-MARES, AKA Jaime Enrique Mares-Rodriguez, AKA Jaime Enrique… v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ-MARES,
AKA Jaime Enrique Mares-Rodriguez,
AKA Jaime Enrique Maresrodriguez, AKA
Jaime Enrique Rodriguez, AKA Jaime
Rodriguez-Mares,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71141
Agency No. A200-807-171
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Enrique Rodriguez-Mares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
* 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
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-71141
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review de novo claims of due
process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Rodriguez-Mares has not demonstrated the agency violated due process by
allowing one IJ to sign the decision on behalf of the prior IJ who had since retired,
where he has not shown prejudice. See id. at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process
claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
Rodriguez-Mares also has not shown the agency’s application of the
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard violated due process,
where he has not shown the application of the standard prejudiced his case. See id.;
Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency’s
interpretation of the hardship standard did not violate due process, and even if it
had, alien had not shown prejudice from its application to the facts of the case).
Rodriguez-Mares’ contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to
adequately set forth the reasons behind its decision is unsupported, where the BIA
sufficiently addressed the contentions he raised in his brief. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the
BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to
enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-71141
reacted.” (citation omitted)). To the extent Rodriguez-Mares contends the BIA
failed to address whether the IJ properly evaluated and addressed the evidence, we
lack jurisdiction to consider this contention, where he did not raise it before the
BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack
jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --