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 preserved his challenge to the 

removability determination by raising it at a bond hearing and in his brief to 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. 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: 06/23/2017
No. 16-60146

2

the BIA. He did not preserve 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 have 

jurisdiction to consider these factual questions. See § 1252(a)(2)(D); EscuderoArciniega 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 GarridoMorato 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 the opportunity to file a waiver application. 

He also contends that he should have been eligible for cancellation of removal 

because his prior convictions for financial crimes did not qualify as aggravated 

felonies. However, the IJ and BIA did not consider 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 application for cancellation of removal and denied him release 

on bond and a change of venue. He also asserts that the BIA violated his due 

process rights by not convening a three-member panel to review the IJ’s 

decision. These claims fail as there is no constitutionally protected liberty or 

property interest in obtaining discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of 

 Case: 16-60146 Document: 00514046245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2017
No. 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