FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUA VAN LE, No. 09-73745
Petitioner, Agency No. A027-754-294
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Qua Van Le, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process
claims, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
*
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).
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s denial of Le’s motion to reopen
the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006). Le’s claim that the BIA did not issue a decision
that fully explains the reasons for denying his motion to reopen is foreclosed by
this determination. See id. at 603-04.
Le’s contention that the Board did not consider the evidence he submitted
fails because he has not “overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the
record.” Id. at 603.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 09-73745