MILTON YOAO ESTRADA OLIVERA, AKA Milton Estrada, AKA Milton Olivera v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILTON YOAO ESTRADA OLIVERA,
AKA Milton Estrada, AKA Milton
Olivera,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70257
Agency No. A043-802-503
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Milton Yoao Estrada Olivera, 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
FILED
DEC 16 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 3 --

removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
constitutional claims and questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198
(9th Cir. 2012), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal as a
matter of discretion is limited to questions of law and constitutional claims, 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B),(D), and Estrada Olivera has not established that the BIA
used an incorrect standard or considered impermissible factors in making its
discretionary determination, see Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.
2007). In addition, the agency did not err in relying on the 2009 police report in
evaluating his eligibility as a matter of discretion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d
308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The sole test for admission of evidence is whether the
evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.”); Torres-Valdivias
v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2015) (“In the context of the BIA’s
discretionary decisions, we have noted that ‘it is proper [for the BIA] to look to
probative evidence outside the record of conviction . . . to determine whether a
favorable exercise of discretion is warranted.’”) (quoting Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir. 2004)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(error is required to establish due process violation).
14-70257 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Estrada Olivera has not established that the BIA failed to consider
his contentions on appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-70257 3

-- 3 of 3 --