ELIAS RODRIGUEZ-CARDENAS, AKA Elias Cardenas-Rodriguez, AKA Elias Rodriguez, AKA… v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIAS RODRIGUEZ-CARDENAS, AKA
Elias Cardenas-Rodriguez, AKA Elias
Rodriguez, AKA Raul Cardenas Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73371
Agency No. A090-820-896
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Elias Rodriguez-Cardenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our
* 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
JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73371
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s determination that an alien did not establish ten years of continuous
physical presence. Zarate v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
for failure to demonstrate ten years of continuous physical presence, where
Rodriguez-Cardenas presented inconsistent testimony with insufficient
corroboration regarding the length of his departures from the United States. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (a departure in excess of 90 days breaks
continuous physical presence); Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1182,
1184 (9th Cir. 2011) (under the deferential substantial evidence standard, the court
will uphold the agency’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary
result).
We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Cardenas’ unexhausted
contentions that the IJ failed to notify him of the need for corroborating evidence,
failed to take testimony from his wife, and failed to properly develop the record.
See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to
review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --