N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ARM ANDO VALLEJO M AR TINEZ a nd SANDR A VALLEJO M AR TINEZ, Pe titione rs, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-70699 Age n c y Nos. A093-366-522

A200-795-615 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 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Arm ando Va l le

jo M artine z and Sa

ndra Va lle j o M artine z , nat ive s and c itiz e ns of M e xic o , pe t ition pro se for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing the ir a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing the ir a

p p lic ations for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l . Our jurisdic tion is



# FIL ED MAR 04 2016 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 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).gove rne d

by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de novo c onstitutiona l c l a im s a nd que stions of la

w. Vilc h e z v . Holde r, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th C ir. 2012). W e dism iss in pa

rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s disc re tiona ry de c ision, pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f) (fina l pa ra gra ph), tha t pe titione rs la c ke d good m ora l c ha ra c te r. Se e Lope z-C aste llanos v . Gonzale

s , 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th C ir. 2006). W e do not re a c h pe titione rs’ c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y ’ s good m ora l c ha ra c te r de te rm ination wa s ba s e d on a le ga lly e rrone ous inte rpre tation of thetax la ws be c a use the good m ora l c ha

ra c te r de te rm ination wa s ba s e d a lso on pe titione rs’ inc onsiste nt te stim ony , a nd pe titione rs do not ra ise a que stion of la

w a s to tha t ba sis. Se e Sime o nov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ As a ge ne ra l rule c ourts a

nd 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 sults the y

re a c h.” (c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om itte d)). Pe titione rs’ c onte ntion tha t the a g e nc y

viola te d the ir right to due

proc e ss by fa iling to provide

the m with a full a nd fa ir he a

ring is not supporte d by

the re c ord. Se e Vargas-He rnande

z v . Gonzale

s , 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ Whe re an a l ie n is give n a

full a nd fa i r opportunity to be re p re se nte d by c ounse l , pre pa

re an

1 4 - 7 0 6 9 9 2a

pplic ation for . . . re l ie f, and to pre se n t te stim ony and othe r e vide nc e in support of the a pplic at ion, he or she ha s be e n provide d with dueproc e ss.” ). Pe titione rs’ c onte ntion tha t the a g e nc y

fa ile d to providespe c i fic , c oge nt re a s ons to support its de

t e rm ination is not supporte d by the re c ord. Se e N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ What is re quire d is m e re ly tha t [the B IA] c onside r the issue s ra ise d, a nd a nnounc e its de c i sion in te rm s suffic ie nt to e na ble a re vie wing c ourt to pe rc e ive that it ha s he ard and thought a nd not m e re ly re a c te d.” (c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om itte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 0 6 9 9 3