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

W IN M UNOZ C ARR ILLO, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70914 Age n c y No. A095-752-601 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 Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARR IS, an d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Tony Erwin M unozC arrillo, a native and c itiz e n of Gua t e m a la , 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 de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ations for c a

n c e l lation of 

# FIL ED FEB 22 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).re m ova l a

nd volunta

ry de p arture . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny in pa

rt a n d dism iss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w . In his ope ning brie f, C a

rrillo fa ils to suffic ie ntly

a ddre ss, a

n d ha s the re fore wa ive d a ny c ha lle n ge to, the B IA’ s dispositive de te rm ination tha

t C a rrillo’ s a bse nc e from

the Unite d State s for m ore tha n 90 da y s re nde rs him

ine l igible for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . S

e e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ Issue s ra ise d in a brie f that a

re not supporte d by

argum e nt a

re de e m e d a ba ndone d.” ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s disc re tiona ry de nia l of volunta

ry de pa rture . Se e Esquiv e l-Garc ia v . Holde r , 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th C i r. 2010). C arrillo’ s c onte ntion tha

t the a ge nc y

did not c onside r both positive and ne gative fa c t ors in e va luating whe the r to gra nt volunta

ry de pa rture la c ks support in the re c o rd and is not suffic ie ntly c olora ble to invoke our jurisdic tion. Se e MartinezRosas v . Gonzale

s , 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th C ir. 2005) (a b se nt a c olora

ble le ga l or c onstitutiona

l c la im , the c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re v ie w disc re tiona ry de te rm i nations). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r C arrillo’ s une xha uste d c onte ntion tha

t he wa s de nie d a

full a nd fa i r he aring. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th

1 4 - 7 0 9 1 4 2C ir. 2010) (thec ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to c onside r c onte ntions not pre s e nte d in a n a lie n’ s a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the a ge nc y ). To the e xte nt C arrillo c onte nds tha t his two 2001 expe dite d re m o va l orde rs viola te d due proc e ss, we la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r the se c onte ntions. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(e )(2); Garc ia de Rinc on v . De

p’t of Home land Se c . , 539 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th C ir. 2008) (noting tha t se c tion 1252(e ) only pe rm its re vie w of e xpe dite d re m o v a l orde rs in a ha be a s c orpus pe tition). W e do not c onside r the ne w e vide nc e re fe re nc e d in C arrillo’ s ope ning brie f. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judic ia l re v ie w is limite d to the a dm inistra tive re c o rd). 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 0 9 1 4 3