FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIAN NUNEZ LOPEZ, No. 08-74489
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-298-790
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Adrian Nunez Lopez, 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 denying his application for
cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
*
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).
Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and for substantial
evidence factual findings, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Lopez’s contention that the IJ violated due process by acting as a
handwriting expert fails in light of the agency’s reliance on alternative grounds for
its finding that Lopez lied about the submission of work authorization and
temporary protective status applications. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
Substantial evidence support the BIA’s determination that there was no clear
evidence of identity theft. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986.
The record does not support Lopez’s contention that the IJ had closed the
record for entry of additional documents before admitting the work authorization
and temporary protective status applications. Lopez’s due process claim therefore
fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on due process claim).
We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal under NACARA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).
2 08-74489
We also lack jurisdiction to review Lopez’s remaining contentions that the IJ
engaged in speculation and that Lopez established good moral character despite the
lack of candor finding because Lopez failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA.
Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner cannot satisfy
the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ’s decision, but,
rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-74489