JESUS RODRIGUEZ OLIVAS, AKA Jesus Olivas, AKA Jesus Olivas Rodriguez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS RODRIGUEZ OLIVAS, AKA Jesus
Olivas, AKA Jesus Olivas Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72647
Agency No. A093-148-543
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Rodriguez Olivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision sustaining the removability charge and
ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* 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
JUN 14 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72647
review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez Olivas’s contention that his
judgment of conviction is invalid, because this claim is an impermissible collateral
attack upon his state court conviction. See Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645
F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner could not collaterally
attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a BIA decision).
The record does not support Rodriguez Olivas’s claim that his conviction
under California Health and Safety Code § 11550(a) was expunged under the
state’s rehabilitation statute. Accordingly, we need not reach Rodriguez Olivas’s
contention that expungement rendered his conviction invalid for federal
immigration purposes.
We do not consider Rodriguez Olivas’s contentions regarding his domestic
violence conviction, where he was not found removable or denied relief based on
that conviction.
To the extent Rodriguez Olivas contends the IJ erred or violated due process
by failing to advise him of rights or eligibility for relief from removal, the record
does not support this contention, where Rodriguez Olivas’s prior grant of
cancellation of removal renders him statutorily ineligible for this relief a second

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72647
time, and the IJ asked Rodriguez Olivas if he feared any harm in Mexico, and he
replied that he did not. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6) (a person whose removal has
been previously cancelled is not eligible for cancellation of removal a second
time); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due
process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice). To the extent
Rodriguez Olivas now contends he is eligible for asylum and related relief, we lack
jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. 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.”).
To the extent Rodriguez Olivas contends the BIA was not thorough or
careful in its review, the record does not support this contention. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny Rodriguez Olivas’s motion to submit out-of-record evidence
(Docket Entry No. 14). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to
the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010)
(stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence). We deny as moot
Rodriguez Olivas’s motion to submit evidence which is already included in the
administrative record. See id. We deny as moot respondent’s motion to strike the
proposed new evidence (Docket Entry No. 16).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --