NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUCIANO URIARTE,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 70586

Agency No. A076

- 607

- 998

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 11, 2017 **

Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Luciano Uriarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Boar d of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) for

,

inter alia

, making a m aterial misrepresentation, and denying his application for a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a )(2). 

# FILED

AUG 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

discretionary wa iver of deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(1)(H)

. We d eny the

petition in part and d ismiss in part.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) provided cle ar and convincing

evidence Ur iarte was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). See Nakamoto v.

Ashcroft , 363 F.3d 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2004). Uriarte misrepresented material facts

by repeatedly failing to disclose his 1989 marriage in Mexico , including on his

1997 California marriag e certificate, his immigrant visa petition

, his sworn

statement to United States Citize nship and Immigration Services , and his

application for adjustment of status.

2. We review de novo Uriarte’s claim that the IJ violated his due process

rights by failing to act as a neutral arbiter. See Colmenar v. INS , 210 F.3d 967, 971

(9th Cir. 2000). Uriarte’s claim is without merit

. Contrary to Uriarte’s contention,

the IJ did not insist that DHS file marriage frau d charges against him and said

nothing to indicate she had prejudged the case. Likewise, Uriarte’s due process

rights were not violated by the IJ’s decision to move forward with a hearing on the

merits of his waiver application under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1) (H), rather than simply

granting relief when DHS initially indicated its non

- opposition. Cf. Tadevosyan

v. Holder , 743 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir. 2014) (agency may not deny relief based

solely on DHS’s opposition)

. T he record demonstrates Uriarte receiv ed a full and3

fair hearing of his claims and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his

behalf. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 741 (9th Cir. 2014).

3. Absent a colorable constitutional or legal claim, we lack jurisdiction to

revie w the agency’s discretionary denial of Uriarte’s application for waiver of

removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), (a)(2)(D); Mendez

- Castro v. Mukasey

,

552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009). Uriarte ’s constitutional claims are n ot

colorable, therefore we dismiss that portion of his petition seeking review of the

agency’s discretiona ry determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H).

PETITION D ENIED IN PART AND D ISMISSED IN PART.