Jose Barba Gonzalez, a.k.a. Jose Eric Barba, a.k.a. Jose Barbagonzalez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE BARBA GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Jose
Eric Barba, a.k.a. Jose Barbagonzalez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70695
Agency No. A089-859-061
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Barba 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal,
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70695 2
and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand.
Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Barba failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barba’s motion to remand
for failure to demonstrate that the evidence submitted would likely change the
result in the case. See Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.
2008) (“Aliens who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a
heavy burden of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence
would likely change the result in the case.” (internal quotations omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to address Barba’s unexhausted contention regarding a
continuance. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --