SANTA CRUZ ROJAS, AKA Gustavo Aguilera v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTA CRUZ ROJAS, AKA Gustavo
Aguilera,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71715
Agency No. A074-424-132
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Santa Cruz Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
FILED
AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

process violations. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010).
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Rojas 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).
Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and
constitutional claims, Rojas’ contention that the BIA failed to show proper
consideration of all factors is not supported by the record. See id. (“To be
colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.”); see
also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not
“write an exegesis on every contention” (internal citation omitted)).
Rojas’ due process contentions regarding the transcription of his April 20,
2012, hearing fail for lack of prejudice, where Rojas has not shown that the alleged
delay may have affected the outcome of his proceedings. See Cruz Rendon, 603
F.3d at 1109 (“In order to prevail on [a due process] claim, the alien . . . must show
prejudice, ‘which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been
affected by the alleged violation.’” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
14-71715 2

-- 2 of 2 --