N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ATEO SANC HEZ-M AR TINEZ, AKA M ate o M artine z -Sanc he z ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72432 Age n c y No. A078-259-408
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

June 26, 2017 ** B e fore : PAEZ, B EA, a n d M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . M ate o Sanc he z -M artine z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

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 c ision pre t e rm itting his a p plic ation for 

# FIL ED JUL 5 2017 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l
. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w. C oronado v
. Holde r , 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th C ir. 2014). W e de ny

in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t a wa ive r of ina d

m issibility

unde r se c t ion 212(h) of theIm

m i g ra tion a

nd Na t iona lity Ac t (“ INA” ), 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(h), is not a

va ila ble to wa ive the e ffe c t of the c onvic tion tha t re nde re d Sanc he z -M artine zine ligiblefor c anc e lla t ion of re m ova l. Se e Gue rre ro-Roque v . Ly nc h , 845 F.3d 940, 942 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ [W ] e hold tha t the wa ive r a

uthority provide d in INA § 212(h) doe s not nullify a c onvic tion tha

t disqua lifie s an a lie n from c anc e lla tion of re m ova l unde r INA § 240A(b).” ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Sanc h e z -M artine z ’ une xha uste d c onte ntions that the IJ a buse d his disc re tion or de nie d due proc e ss by not gra n ting a furthe r c ontinua nc e . Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (the c 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 inistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the a ge nc y ). W e de ny Sanc he z -M a

rtine z ’ m otion for judic i a l notic e and to supplem e nt the re c ord on a

ppe a l (Doc ke t Entry

No. 11) a nd gra nt R e sponde nt’ s m otion to strike e xhibits from

San c he z -M artine z ’ ope ning brie f (Doc ke t Entry No. 13). Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4) (“ [A] c ourt of a ppe a ls sha ll de c ide the pe tition only on the

1 4
- 7 2 4 3 2 2a dm inistra

tive re c ord on whic h the orde r of re m ova l is ba se d[.] ” ); Fishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 1996) (e n ba nc ) (ne w e vide nc e m ay

be a dde d to the re c ord through a m o tion to re ope n with thea ge nc y ). W e de ny Sanc he z -M a

rtine z ’ re que st for a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s a s m oot. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4
- 7 2 4 3 2 3