Ricardo Rodriguez Pizano v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO RODRIGUEZ PIZANO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70438
Agency No. A205-317-778
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Rodriguez Pizano, 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 (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and
pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
* 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
DEC 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70438
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v.
Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez Pizano’s contention that the IJ
erred in finding him removable because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the BIA).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Rodriguez Pizano’s convictions for
petty theft under California Penal Code sections 484 and 490.5 are crimes
involving moral turpitude that render him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 710, 717 (9th Cir.
2021) (California theft constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude).
To the extent Rodriguez Pizano contends the IJ relied on improper evidence
and failed to provide a proper hearing, his claim fails because he has not shown
error. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process claim,
a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
We do not address Rodriguez Pizano’s contentions as to other eligibility
requirements for cancellation of removal because the BIA did not deny relief on
these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70438
2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied
upon by that agency.”).
Rodriguez Pizano’s request for remand or reopening is denied.
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --