Jose Gomez-Munoz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GOMEZ-MUNOZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71558
Agency No. A089-111-589
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Gomez-Munoz, 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 application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
APR 14 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 2 --

questions of law. Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Contrary to Gomez-Munoz’ contention, the BIA applied the correct legal
standard in determining that he failed to establish that his removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children.
See id. at 497-98 (“Congress intended that discretion in cancellation of removal
cases be exercised on the basis of whether removal would result in an exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to the citizen-children.” (emphasis in original)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Munoz’ contention that the IJ failed
to consider specific evidence in the record, where Gomez-Munoz failed to exhaust
this contention before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.
2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an
alien’s administrative proceedings).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Munoz’ contention that his
case warrants a favorable exercise of discretion and, accordingly, his request for
remand to the agency for administrative closure is denied. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-71558 2

-- 2 of 2 --