N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE M ANUEL M AR T INEZ GAR C IA, AKA Jose M anue l M artine z , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-73702 Age n c y No. A206-407-484 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 De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Jose M anue l M artine z Garc ia , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se 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 de ny ing his a pplic a tion for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e 

# FIL ED DEC 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 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 vie w de novo que stions of la w, C arrillo v . Holde r , 781 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th C ir. 2015), a nd re v ie w for a

buse of disc re tion the de nia l of a m otion for re m and, Mov sisian v . Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th C i r. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt and dism i ss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t M artine z Ga

rc ia ’ s 2014 c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode § 273.5(a ) is a c a te goric a l c rim e of dom e stic viole nc e unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(E)(i). Se e C a rrillo , 781 at 1157-60 (holding tha t a m a te ria l ly sim ila r ve rsion of C a l. Pe na l C ode § 273.5(a ) is c ate goric a l ly a c rim e of dom e stic viole n c e unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(E)(i)); Banue los-Ay on v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1080, 1081, 1083-86 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha t C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 273.5(a ) is c a te goric a lly a c rim e of dom e s tic viole nc e and re je c ting theargum e nt that C a l. Pe na l C ode § 273.5(a ) doe s not re q uire forc e and injury). M artine z Garc ia ’ s c onte ntions to the c ontra ry are una va iling. Ac c ordingly , the a ge nc y c orre c tly c o nc l ude d tha

t M artine z Ga

rc i a is ine ligiblefor c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1229b(b)(1)(C ), 1227(a )(2)(E)(i). The B IA prope rly

c onc lude d tha

t it c ould not c onside r M artine z Ga rc ia ’ s c onte ntions tha

t he wa s not guilty

of the c rim ina l offe nse s for whic h he wa s c onvic te d a

nd tha t he wa s subje c te d to due proc e ss viola tions in his crim ina l proc e e dings, a s the a ge nc y m ay not e nte rta in a

c olla te ra l atta c k on a

judgm e nt of

1 4 - 7 3 7 0 2 2c onvic tion, unle ss tha t judgm e nt is void on its fa c e . Se e Ramire

z -Villalpando v. Holde r , 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ A pe titione r m ay not c olla te ra lly a tta c k his sta te c ourt c onvic t i on on a

pe tition for re v ie w of a

B IA de c i sion.” ). C ontra ry to M artine z Garc ia ’ s c onte ntion, theB IA did not e rr in de c lining to re a c h the que stion of whe t he r his c onvic tions c onstitute d c rim e s involving m ora l turpitude , whe re its de te rm ination tha t the c onvic tions we re c rim e s of dom e stic viole nc e wa s dispositive . Se e Sime onov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ As a

ge ne ra l rule c ourts a

n d a ge nc ie s a

re not re quire d

to m ake findings on issue s the de c ision of whic h is unne c e ssa

ry to the re s ults the y

re a c h.” (c ita

tion a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d)). To the e xte nt M artine z Ga rc ia c ha lle nge s the B IA’ s de c i sion not to rem and to the IJ for M artine z Ga

rc ia to file a U visa a pplic a tion, theB IA did not a buse its disc re tion, whe re M artine z Ga rc ia provide d no e vide nc e of prim a fa c ie e ligibility . Se e Shin v . Muk

a se y , 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ Alie n s who se e k to re m and or re ope n

proc e e dings to pursue

re l ie f be ar a

he a v y burde n of proving tha

t, if proc e e dings we re re o p e ne d, the ne w e v ide nc e would like ly c ha nge the re sult in the c a se .” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); Matte r of Sanc he z Sosa , 25 I. & N. De c . 807, 812-16 (B IA 2012) (disc u ssing how a pe titione r m ay

e sta blish prim a fa c ie e ligibility

for a U visa suc h tha t a c ontinua nc e or re m a

n d m ight be

1 4 - 7 3 7 0 2 3warran te d).

W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r M artine z Ga rc i a ’ s une xha

u ste d c o nte ntions that his c onvic tions should not c ount for im m igration purpose s, his bond is e xc e ssive , the c onditions of his de t e ntion viola

te due proc e ss, a

nd tha t he m ay be e ligiblefor re ope ning be fore the a ge nc y . 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 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 ). M artine z Ga

rc i a ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions a re una va iling. M artine z Ga

rc i a ’ s De c e m

be r 4, 2015, “ m o tion to proc e e d with pe t ition for re vie w” i s de nie d 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 3 7 0 2 4