FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER DANILO CABRERA, No. 14-72626
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-940-838
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Walter Danilo Cabrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for special
*
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).
rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA properly determined that Cabrera is subject to the heightened
hardship standard under NACARA due to his conviction. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c).
To the extent that Cabrera challenges the BIA’s discretionary determination that he
failed to establish the hardship required to qualify for relief under NACARA, we
lack jurisdiction. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (the
statute expressly precludes the court from reviewing the agency’s eligibility
determination for NACARA special rule cancellation of removal). In light of our
disposition, we do not reach Cabrera’s remaining contentions regarding his
credibility and eligibility for NACARA. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,
538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court need not reach a contention when another dispositive
determination has been made).
We lack jurisdiction to review Cabrera’s unexhausted contention that he was
denied a full and fair hearing. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
Cir. 2004) (procedural due process claims must be exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-72626