N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R AFAEL GONZALEZ-OVANDO, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72406 Age n c y No. A098-034-017 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. R a fa e l Gonz a le z -Ovando, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing his a ppe a l from

a de c ision of a

n im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) de ny i ng his a pplic ation for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e 

# FIL ED MAY29 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w de novo dueproc e s s c la im s. C ruz Re n don v . Holde r , 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010). W e d e ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Gonz a le z -Ovando’ s due proc e ss c h a lle nge to the IJ’ s e xc lusion of his wife ’ s c orroborative te stim ony fa ils be c a use Gonz a le z -Ovando did not e sta blish tha t the te stim ony would ha ve a lte re d the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t his own version of e ve nts, whe n a c c e pte d

a s true , did not de m o nstra te the good m ora l c h a

ra c t e r ne c e ssa ry for c an c e lla

tion of re m ova l. Se e id. (“ In orde r to pre va il on [a due proc e s s] c la im , the a lie n . . . m ust show pre

judic e , ‘ whic h m e an s tha

t the outc om e of the proc e e ding m ay

have be e n a ffe c te d by

the a lle ge d viola

tion.’ ” (c ita

tion om i tte d)); se e also P agay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1192 (9th C ir. 2011) (re je c t ing a due proc e ss c la im

for la c k of pre

j udic e upon ide ntify ing “ no c onne c tion be twe e n” an IJ’ s re fusa l to he ar c orroborat ive te stim ony “ and the outc om e of the proc e e ding,” whe re the IJ’ s a c c e pta n c e of the pe titione r’ s ve rsion of the fa c ts m a d e c orroboration “not ne c e ssa ry ” ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s disc re t iona ry de te rm ination tha

t Gonz a le z -Ovando fa ile d to de m onstra te the re quisite good m ora l c ha ra c te r, se e Lope z-C aste llanos v . Gonzale

s , 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd he ra ise s no c olora ble que stion of la

w tha t would invoke

our jurisdic tion in this re ga rd, se e

1 2 - 7 2 4 0 6 2Me n de

z-C astro v . Muk

a se y , 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th C i r. 2009) (“ To be c olora ble in this c onte xt, . . . the[que stion of la w] m ust ha ve som e possibleva lidity .” ). Fina lly , be c a

u se the B IA de nie d Gonz a le z -Ovando’ s c anc e lla tion re que st due sole ly

to his la c k of good m ora l c ha ra c te r, we m ay

not re vie wGonz a le z Ova ndo’ s c onte ntions re ga

rding ha rdship. Se e Andia v . Ashc roft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ) (“ In re vie wing thede c ision of theB IA, we c onside r only

the grounds re lie d

upon by tha t a ge nc y . ” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 2 4 0 6 3