FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BY THOR and BAO LO, No. 08-73525
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A070-455-056
A070-455-057
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
By Thor and Bao Lo, natives and citizens of Laos, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeals from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of their request for further
hearings upon remand from the BIA. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
The agency used the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion in
denying petitioners’ request for further hearings to introduce additional
documentation of hardship in support of their cancellation of removal application
upon remand from the BIA, where the evidence proffered was cumulative, was not
material, and was previously available. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3); Fernandes
v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An articulated purpose for the
remand [from the BIA], without any express limit on scope, is not sufficient to
limit the remand such that it forecloses consideration of other new claims or
motions that the IJ deems appropriate or that are presented in accordance with
relevant regulations.”); see also Matter of M-D-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 138, 141-42 (BIA
2007) (an IJ has authority to consider additional evidence on remand “if it is
material, was not previously available, and could not have been discovered or
presented at the former hearing”). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’
unexhausted contention that this evidence would have bolstered their position that
they had not firmly resettled in France. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080
2 08-73525
(9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an
alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that petitioners are
ineligible for asylum because they were firmly resettled in France before arriving
in the United States and that petitioners failed to establish that one of the
exceptions to firm resettlement applied to them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.15; Vang v. INS, 146 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding
firm resettlement despite petitioners’ claim that they would no longer be able to
return to country of firm resettlement due to expiration of travel documents).
We deny petitioners’ request for mediation.
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-73525