NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JOSE MANUEL CARRASCO- No. 15-71015
ESCOBAR,
Agency No. A205-526-495
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Carrasco-Escobar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law and claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not err or violate due process by pretermitting Carrasco-
Escobar’s application for cancellation of removal, where he lacked any qualifying
relatives at the time of his final removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(D),
1101(b)(1); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show
error and prejudice to establish a due process violation); De Mercado v. Mukasey,
566 F.3d 810, 816 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[N]o authority . . . suggest[s] that the
Constitution provides . . . a fundamental right to reside in the United States simply
because other [family members] are citizens or lawful permanent residents.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Carrasco-Escobar’s unexhausted contention
regarding the preservation of his son’s status as a qualifying relative. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-71015