Luis Saul Loera Lujan v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS SAUL LOERA LUJAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74112
Agency No. A096-057-881
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Luis Saul Loera Lujan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of
FILED
SEP 02 2015
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 3 --

law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not err in denying Lujan’s request to present additional evidence
after the BIA’s limited remand. The BIA vacated its prior decision only “insofar
as it entered an order of removal,” and limited the scope of the remand to
proceedings consistent with Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937, 941 (9th
Cir. 2004), overruled by Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2007)
(en banc). See Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1072-74 (9th Cir. 2010). It
follows that Lujan failed to establish a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
Lujan’s contentions that the BIA summarily dismissed his appeal or that the
agency failed to provide reasoned decisions are belied by the record.
Lujan’s contention that the IJ’s refusal to consider voluntary departure on
remand violated due process is without merit, where Lujan does not challenge the
BIA’s determination that Lujan waived the issue by not formally applying for such
relief before the IJ. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a
petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Lujan failed to
establish the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal, see Romero-Torres v.
06-74112 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the court lacks
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
determination), and his unexhausted contention that the BIA violated its
regulations by reversing the IJ’s decision in a single member order, see Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter jurisdiction over
legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
06-74112 3

-- 3 of 3 --