GABRIEL FUENTES-RODRIGUEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72384 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 13 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL ALEJANDRO FUENTESRODRIGUEZ, No. 10-72384 Agency No. A075-505-832 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 8, 2012 ** Before: ALARCÃ N, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Alejandro Fuentes-Rodriguez, 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 * 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). applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law, including due process claims. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s conclusion that Fuentes-Rodriguez did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). In addition, he was ineligible for voluntary departure due to his previous grant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. The BIA did not err in concluding that Fuentes-Rodriguez did not establish a due process violation by the IJ. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). We lack jurisdiction to review Fuentes-Rodriguez s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he failed to raise it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 10-72384
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
