NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JESUS SALGADO-FRANCO, No. 13-74364
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-090-469
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jesus Salgado-Franco, a Mexican citizen, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal and
affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his request for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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).
legal determinations regarding an individual’s eligibility for cancellation of
removal, Montero–Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2002), and
we review factual findings for substantial evidence, Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025,
1028–29 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny Salgado-Franco’s petition for review.
1. The BIA properly determined that Salgado-Franco was ineligible for
cancellation of removal because his deportation was previously suspended. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6). Although Salgado-Franco argues that he had obtained
suspension of deportation relief as a derivative of his mother’s application,
reasonable and substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Salgado-
Franco received this relief independent of his mother’s claim. The record shows
that Salgado-Franco had completed his own application for suspension of
deportation. In his application, Salgado-Franco described the extreme hardship that
he would personally suffer if deported to Mexico; the hardship described was not
necessarily dependent on the success of his mother’s application. Because Salgado-
Franco previously received suspension of deportation relief, under § 1229b(c)(6),
he is not eligible for cancellation of removal. See Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 488
F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. We lack jurisdiction to review Salgado-Franco’s contention that he
2
remains eligible for cancellation of removal because he was granted suspension of
deportation relief after September 30, 1996, because he failed to exhaust this claim
before the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.
3