John Mark Mangthag v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN MARK MANGTHAG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71849
Agency No. A205-970-918
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
John Mark Mangthag, a native and citizen of the Federated States of
Micronesia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration 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
* 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
MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-71849
claims of due process violations, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir.
2014), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Malhi v. INS,
336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
We do not consider Mangthag’s contentions from his opening brief that he
did not raise to the BIA, including his challenges to his underlying state court
criminal proceedings. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below).
We reject Mangthag’s contentions that the agency violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We otherwise lack jurisdiction to
review the agency’s discretionary denial of Mangthag’s request for voluntary
departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174,
1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial of
voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand
Mangthag’s case where he did not express a fear of return to the IJ, and did not
submit any new facts or an asylum application on appeal to the BIA. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court “defer[s] to the
BIA’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-71849
law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --