Oscar Chavez Gonzalez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR CHAVEZ GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72886
Agency No. A090-138-578
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Chavez Gonzalez, 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 order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §
§ 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Zarate
FILED
DEC 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012), and review de novo questions of
law, Maldonado-Galindo v. Gonzales, 456 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chavez Gonzalez
was previously granted cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents.
See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The possibility of
drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”
(quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, the agency did not err in
determining that Chavez Gonzalez did not meet his burden of proof to establish
eligibility for cancellation of removal, where he previously received that form of
relief. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(4), 1229b(c)(6).
We lack jurisdiction to review Chavez Gonzalez’s due process claims
because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-72886 2

-- 2 of 2 --