Pedro Oxlaj Lorenzo v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO OXLAJ LORENZO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72053
Agency No. A070-017-152
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Oxlaj Lorenzo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of special rule cancellation of removal under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). We
dismiss 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
APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72053
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of NACARA relief as a
matter of discretion. See Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016)
(8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of the agency’s discretionary denial of
NACARA relief; holding that alien did not raise a reviewable issue because “he
simply disagrees with the agency’s weighing of his positive equities and the
negative factors”). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable
questions of law and constitutional claims, Oxlaj Lorenzo raises no such claim. See
id. at 1177.
Because the agency’s discretionary denial is dispositive, we do not address
Oxlaj Lorenzo’s contentions regarding the proper time period to consider good
moral character for NACARA relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the agency are not required to make findings on
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Oxlaj Lorenzo’s unexhausted
contention that the IJ violated due process by not allowing him to challenge
whether he was convicted of a second crime involving moral turpitude. See Tijani
v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --