FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDY SALVADOR RIVERA-MANCIA, No. 15-71696
Petitioner, Agency No. A036-277-160
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Andy Salvador Rivera-Mancia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for a waiver of
inadmissibility under former INA § 212(c). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Vargas-Hernandez v.
Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 2007). We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny a
waiver under former INA § 212(c). See id. at 923 (citing 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). Although this court retains jurisdiction to review colorable
questions of law or constitutional claims, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Rivera-
Mancia’s challenges to the agency’s weighing and evaluation of his equities in
exercising its discretion are not colorable challenges that invoke our jurisdiction.
See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2009) (the court
lacks jurisdiction to review “an abuse of discretion argument [cloaked] in the garb
of a question of law”). Although Rivera-Mancia contends that the IJ erred in not
considering the hardship to his wife and future child because his marriage took
place when Rivera-Mancia was already in proceedings, the BIA considered this
equity as part of its de novo review. Rivera-Mancia also contends that the IJ erred
in disregarding his employment as an equity; however, the BIA determined it
would not treat this as a negative factor in its own balancing of the equities.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rivera-Mancia’s unexhausted contentions
that his situation is analogous to that of Special Immigrant Juveniles; that the IJ
2 15-71696
refused a request for a Spanish interpreter or that there were translation issues; and
that the IJ should have realized that the witnesses had not been properly prepared
by Rivera-Mancia’s former counsel before being called to testify. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the agency). Rivera-Mancia also failed to exhaust his contentions that the IJ erred
in relying on Matter of Buscemi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 628 (BIA 1988), to require
Rivera-Mancia to establish unusual or outstanding equities, and that the IJ erred in
disregarding his coaching of his daughter’s soccer team as being an example of his
giving back to the community in which he lives. See Tijani, 628 F.3d at 1080.
Rivera-Mancia waived any challenge to the BIA’s determinations regarding
due process by failing to address them in his opening brief. See id. (a petitioner
waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
We deny Rivera-Mancia’s motion to take judicial notice of his related
supporting documentation (Docket Entry No. 18). See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d
365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining standard for review of out-of-record
evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-71696