NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ANGEL RIOS-GOMEZ, AKA Miguel No. 13-73717
Angel Rios Gomez,
Agency No. A095-747-157
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Angel Rios-Gomez, 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”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims. Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Rios-Gomez’s contention that the IJ made allegedly incriminating comments
off the record fails for lack of prejudice, where Rios-Gomez has not proffered the
substance of those comments or explained how they affected the outcome of his
proceedings. 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).
Rios-Gomez’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all relevant
evidence is not supported by the record, and any error that the IJ committed by
allegedly misstating the number of prior voluntary departures Rios-Gomez
received was corrected by the BIA on appeal. See id.
We lack jurisdiction to review Rios-Gomez’s remaining challenges to the
agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary because they do not constitute colorable
constitutional claims or questions of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D).
To the extent Rios-Gomez contends he is eligible for cancellation of
removal, the agency correctly determined his 2008 voluntary departure precluded
his ability to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence. 8
2 13-73717
U.S.C. § 1229b(1)(A); Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 973-74 (9th Cir.
2003) (per curiam). To the extent Rios-Gomez contends he is eligible for
adjustment of status, the agency properly concluded that he has not presented
evidence of a pending or approved I-130 visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(a).
To the extent Rios-Gomez seeks asylum and related relief because he fears
harm or torture if he returns to Mexico, we lack jurisdiction over these unexhausted
claims because Rios-Gomez failed to apply for these forms of relief before the
agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
The validity of petitioner’s firearm conviction and the performance of his
criminal defense counsel during his criminal proceedings are not properly before
us. See Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A
petitioner may not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for
review of a BIA decision”).
Similarly, we do not consider the documents Rios-Gomez submitted for the
first time with his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
Finally, to the extent petitioner requests a stay of removal, the request is
denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-73717