NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELMER RAMIREZ-GUZMAN, AKA No. 16-72431 Elmer Ramirez, Agency No. A205-716-738 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Elmer Ramirez-Guzman, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Guzman’s motion to reconsider for failure to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Ramirez-Guzman has not shown error in the BIA’s prior determination that he failed to meet his burden of establishing good moral character for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, where record evidence did not rule out the possibility that he actually served an aggregate period of 180 days or more for his criminal conviction sentences. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(7), 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1229c(b)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (“If the evidence indicates that one or more of the grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply, the alien shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such grounds do not apply.”). To the extent Ramirez-Guzman contends the BIA was required to determine whether his criminal convictions rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), or that there was ineffective assistance of counsel in his underlying proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to consider these unexhausted contentions. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2 16-72431 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 16-72431 16-72431 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Elmer Ramirez-Guzman v. Jefferson Sessions, III 18 September 2018 Agency Unpublished 331d13395d4930aff2953b269ff24b84bf94ae9a
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals