Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0356-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70622
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Nicolette Glazer, Attorney, Law Offices of Larry R. Glazer, Century City, CA, for Petitioner
    Lindsay Dunn, Trial Attorney, Ashley Young Martin, Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 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 denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Rodriguez-Rodriguez has waived any challenge to the agency’s hardship determination. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not, raised in an opening brief are waived).

Because the agency’s hardship determination is dispositive, we do not reach Rodriguez-Rodriguez’s contentions regarding the agency’s continuous physical presence and related credibility determinations. See Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d 941, 942 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy any one of the four requirements in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) is fatal to a cancellation application); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach),

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.