Ronaldo Hernandez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALDO HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74402
Agency No. A205-716-402
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ronaldo Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the
FILED
NOV 25 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 --

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny
in part, dismiss in part, and grant in part the petition for review, and remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s dispositive finding that
Hernandez is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, where he presented
no evidence that he has a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D). See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.
2002) (cancellation of removal denied for lack of qualifying relative).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of Hernandez’s applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, where he failed to exhaust the
claims before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
As the government concedes, the BIA failed to consider Hernandez’s
properly raised challenge to the IJ’s discretionary denial of his application for
voluntary departure. We therefore grant Hernandez’s petition in part and remand
to the BIA to consider those contentions in the first instance. See Sagaydak v.
Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005).
13-74402 2

-- 2 of 3 --

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Hernandez’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part;
GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
13-74402 3

-- 3 of 3 --