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

R IVER A-M A NC IA, Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71696 Age n c y No. A036-277-160 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 July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Andy Sa lva dor R ive ra -M anc ia , a native and c i tiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic ation for a

wa ive r of ina d m issibility

unde r form e r INA § 212(c ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 

# FIL ED AUG 02 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de n ovo que stions of la w . Vargas-He rnande

z v . Gonzale s , 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th C ir. 2007). W e dism iss in pa rt a nd de ny in pa rt the p e tition for re v i e w. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s disc re t iona ry de c ision to deny

a wa ive r unde r form e r INA § 212(c ). Se e id. at 923 (c iting 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(ii)). Although this c ourt re t a ins jurisdic tion to re v ie w c olora ble que stions of la

w or c onstitutiona

l c la im s, se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D), R ive ra M an c i a ’ s c h a lle nge s to thea ge nc y ’ s we ighing a nd e va luation of his e quitie s in e xe rc ising its disc

re tion a re not c olora

ble c ha lle nge s tha

t invokeour jurisdic tion. Se e Me nde

z-C astro v . Muk

ase y , 552 F.3d 975, 979-80 (9th C ir. 2009) (thec ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w “ an a buse of disc re t ion a

rgum e nt [c l oake d] in the ga rb of a que s tion of la

w” ). Although R

ive ra -M anc ia

c onte nds tha

t the IJ e rre d

in not c onside ring the ha

rdship to his wife

and future c h ild be c a

use his m arria g e took pla c e whe n R ive ra -M an c ia wa s a lre a dy

in proc e e dings, theB IA c onside re d this e quity a s pa rt of its denovo re vie w. R i ve ra -M anc ia a lso c onte n ds tha

t the IJ e rre d in disre ga rding his e m

ploy m e nt a s a n e quity ; howe ve r, the B IA de te rm ine d it would not tre at

this a s a ne g ative fa c tor in its own ba la n c ing of the e quitie s. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r R ive ra -M a nc i a ’ s une xha

uste d c onte ntions that his situa t ion is a na logous to tha

t of Spe c ia l Im

m i grant Juve n ile s ; tha

t the IJ 1 5 - 7 1 6 9 6 2re fuse d a

re que st for a

Spanish inte rpre te r or tha t the re we re tra

nsla tion issue s; a

nd that the IJ should ha

ve re a liz e d tha

t the witne sse s ha d not be e n prope rly pre pa re d by R ive ra -M anc ia ’ s form e r c o unse l be fore be ing c a l le d to te stify . Se eTijani 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 se 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 ). R ive ra -M anc ia a lso fa ile d to e xha ust his c onte ntions tha

t the IJ e rre d in re ly i ng on Matte r of Busc e mi , 19 I. & N. De c . 628 (B IA 1988), to re quire R ive ra -M anc ia

to e sta blish unusua

l or outsta nding e quitie s, a

nd tha t the IJ e rre d in disre ga rding his c oa c h ing of his da ughte r’ s soc c e r te am

a s be ing a

n e xam ple of his giving ba c k to thec om

m unity in whic h he live s. Se e Tijani , 628 F.3d a t 1080. R ive ra -M anc ia

wa ive d a ny c ha lle nge to the B IA’ s de te rm inations re ga rding due proc e ss by

fa iling to addre ss the m

in his opening brie f. Se e id. (a pe titione r wa ive s a n issue by fa iling to raise it in the ope ning brie f). W e de ny R i ve ra -M anc ia ’ s m otion to ta k e judic ia l notic e of his re late d supporting docum e ntation (Doc ke t Entry No. 18). Se e De nt v . Holde r , 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th C ir. 2010) (e xpla ining sta nda rd for re vie w of out-of-re c ord e vide nc e ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

1 5 - 7 1 6 9 6 3