N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAIM E HER

NANDEZ LOPEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70134 Age n c y No. A200-707-364 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, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Ja im e He rna

nde z Lope z , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r of re m o va l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings,



# F IL ED MAY21 2015 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).inc l uding c re dibility d e te rm inations. B asse nev . Holde r , 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th

C ir. 2013). W e re vie w for a buse of disc re t ion the de nia l of a m o tion for a c ontinua nc e and re vie w de novo c onstitutiona l c la im s . Sandov al-Luna v . Muk ase y , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l re ve rsa l of the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t He rnande z Lope z fa ile d

to e sta blish tha t he ha d be e n

a dm itte d to theUnite d State s, and tha t he wa s the re fore both re m o va ble and ine l igiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus, whe re the a ge nc y ’ s a d

ve rse c re dibility

de t e rm inat ion wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e an d He rnande z Lope z fa ile d to pre se nt c orroborating e v ide nc e c onc e rning them a

nne r of his e ntry

into theUnite d

State s. S e e 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a); Shre stha v . Holde r

, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th C ir. 2010) (a lie n fa ile d to m e e t his burde n whe re , a bse nt his disc re dite d te stim ony , the re wa s no obje c tive e vide nc e to support his c la im ). C ontra ry to his c onte ntions, the

a ge nc y did not a buse its disc re tion or viola te He rnande z Lope z ’ due proc e s s rights by de ny ing a

c ontinua nc e to a wa i t a djudic ation of his I-130 visa pe tition. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a) (re quiring a pplic ant for a d justm e nt of sta

tus to ha v e be e n “ inspe c te d a

nd a dm itte d or pa

role d into the Unite d State s” ); Sandov al-Luna , 526 F.3d at 1247 (no a

buse of disc re t ion by

1 3 - 7 0 1 3 4 2de ny ing a

m otion for a c o ntinua

nc e whe re the re lie f sought wa s not a va ila ble to pe titione r); Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (to pre va il on a due proc e s s c ha lle nge , a

n a l ie n m ust show e rror and pre

judic e ). He rnande z Lope z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the a ge n c y

a buse d its disc re tion a

nd viola te d his due proc e ss rights by pre te rm itting his a

pplic ation for c a

n c e l lation of re m ova l a nd by de ny i ng his re q

ue st for a c ontinua

nc e to a llow him to submi t finge rprints fa ils whe re the IJ a dvise d He rnande z Lope z ora lly and in writing of the de a dline for be ing finge rprinte d a nd the c onse que nc e s of fa ilure to m e e t the de a dline , a

nd He rnande z Lope z ha d suffic ie nt tim e to c om p l y and indic ate d

tha t he unde rstood theIJ’ s wa

rnings. Se e C

ui v . Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 1289, 1293-95 (9th C ir. 2008) (thea ge nc y

a b use d its disc re tion whe re it de c line d to gra nt a c ontinua nc e for the a lie n to re subm it re quire d finge rprints, whe re the a lie n ha d no notic e of the re quire m e nt); Lata , 204 F.3d a t 1246. C ontra ry to He rnande z Lope z ’ c onte ntion, theB IA provide d suffic ie nt re a s oning a

nd de ta il in its opinion. Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [The B IA] doe s not ha v e to write an e x e ge sis on e ve ry c onte ntion. W

hat is re quire d

is m e re ly tha t [the B IA] c onside r the issue s ra ise d, and a nnounc e its de c ision in term s suffic ie nt to e na ble a re vie wing c ourt to

1 3 - 7 0 1 3 4 3pe rc e ive tha

t it ha s he ard a

nd thought a

nd not m e re ly

re a c te d.” (c i tation a

n d quota t ion m arks om itte d)). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r He rnande zLope z ’ c o nte ntion tha t the IJ e xhibite d bia s a ga inst him , whe re he fa ile d to e xha ust tha t c o nte ntion be fore the a ge nc y . S

e e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (thec ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to c onside r le ga l c la im s not pre s e nte d in a n a lie n’ s a dm i nistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the 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 3 - 7 0 1 3 4 4