Raul Chavez Lozano v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL CHAVEZ LOZANO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73061
Agency No. A041-106-704
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Raul Chavez Lozano, 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 cancellation of removal and ordering
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
* 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
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73061
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err or violate due process in pretermitting Chavez
Lozano’s application for cancellation of removal, where his conviction for
possession with intent to sell methamphetamine under California Health and Safety
Code § 11378 rendered him statutorily ineligible for such relief. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(a)(3); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show
error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). Thus, the agency
was not required to address Chavez Lozano’s contentions regarding the other
eligibility requirements.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Chavez Lozano’s unexhausted contentions
that the government failed to meet its burden of proving that he is removable as
charged, or that his conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11378 is
not an aggravated felony. Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
(the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented to the agency in
the alien’s proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --