NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO PEREZ-MARTINEZ, No. 16-72256
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-405-869
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Perez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
*
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).
determination regarding continuous physical presence. Zarate v. Holder, 671 F.3d
1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012). We review de novo questions of law, including claims
of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez-
Martinez did not show 10 years of continuous physical presence to qualify for
cancellation of removal, where he provided unclear testimony and no corroborating
evidence to show he was present in the United States for a three year period
between 2002 and 2005. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) (requiring 10 years of
continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(4)(B) (in determining whether alien has met the burden of proving
eligibility, the agency weighs testimony against record evidence; agency can
require evidence to corroborate otherwise credible testimony). Accordingly, the
agency did not err or violate due process in making its determination. See Padilla-
Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must
demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Perez-Martinez’ unexhausted contentions
regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071,
1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in
an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-72256