FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE MANDRUGANO-TOLENTINO, No. 13-71291
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-321-219
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rene Mandrugano-Tolentino, 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”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
*
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).
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in determining that Mandrugano-Tolentino failed to
demonstrate his eligibility for any form of relief, including cancellation of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b or adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). See 8
C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (alien bears the burden of establishing eligibility for relief from
removal).
Accordingly, Mandrugano-Tolentino has not established prejudice from the
IJ pretermitting relief before he filed an application for cancellation of removal.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process
challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
We lack jurisdiction to review Mandrugano-Tolentino’s unexhausted
contention regarding relief under the Federal First Offender Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3607.
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to
review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-71291