### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60146 Summary Calendar

MARINO SANDOVAL

- RAMIREZ, also known as Marino Sandoval , Petitioner

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A008 779 769

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Marino Sandoval

- Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Sandoval

- Ramirez contends that he pr eserved his challenge to the removability determination by raising it at a bond hearing and in his brief to

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 23, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60146 Document: 00514046245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2017N o. 16

- 60146

2 the BIA

. He did not preserv e this issue before the IJ or BIA and, therefore, the claim is unexhausted

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19( d) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Challenging the determination that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal based on an aggravated felony conviction, Sandoval

- Ramirez urges that the determination was based on an incomplete state record and that his
state felony conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor . We do not h ave jurisdiction to consider the s e factual question s

. See § 1252(a)(2)(D) ; Escudero

Arciniega v. Holder , 702 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 2012) ; Vasquez

- Martinez v. Holder , 564 F.3d 712, 716 (5th Cir . 2009) . In addition, Sandoval

- Ramirez’s argument that the definition of aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) cannot be applied retroactively to his conviction is unavailing. See Garrido

Morato v. Gonzales , 485 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 2007). Although Sandoval

- Ramirez urges that he is entitled to a waiver of removal under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c) , he has shown no reason for this court to remand the matter for such relief given that he previously did not avail himself of t he opportunity to file a waiver application

. He also contends that he should have been eligible for cancellation of remov al be cause his prior convictions for financial crime s did not qualify as aggravated felonies

. However, the IJ and BIA did not conside r these convictions when determining whether he was eligible for cancellation of removal. Sandoval

- Ramirez argues that the BIA violated his due process rights when it sustained the IJ’s decision because the IJ did not hold an evidentiary hearing on his app lication for cancellation of removal and denied him release on bond and a change of venue. He also assert s that the BIA violated his due process rights by not convening a three

- member panel to review the IJ’s decis ion. These claims fail as there is no co nstitutionally protected liberty or property interest in obtaining discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of Case: 16-60146 Document: 00514046245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2017N o. 16

- 60146

3 removal. See Sattani v. Holder , 749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014); Assaad v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004)

. The petition for review is DENIED. Case: 16-60146 Document: 00514046245 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/23/2017