Gabriel Alejandro Fuentes- Rodriguez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL ALEJANDRO FUENTES-
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72384
Agency No. A075-505-832
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Alejandro Fuentes-Rodriguez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his
FILED
AUG 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72384 2
applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law, including due
process claims. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Fuentes-Rodriguez
did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). In addition, he was ineligible for
voluntary departure due to his previous grant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Fuentes-Rodriguez did not establish a
due process violation by the IJ. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
We lack jurisdiction to review Fuentes-Rodriguez’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim because he failed to raise it before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review
contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --