Case Name: Milton Yoao Estrada OLIVERA, aka Milton Estrada, aka Milton Olivera, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-16
Citations: 626 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 14-70257
Parties: Milton Yoao Estrada OLIVERA, aka Milton Estrada, aka Milton Olivera, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 626
Pages: 725–726

Head Matter:
Milton Yoao Estrada OLIVERA, aka Milton Estrada, aka Milton Olivera, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70257.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 16, 2015.
Yolanda V. Martin, Esquire, Law Offices of Mike Razi, APC, Los Angeles, CA, Maziar Razi, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Milton Yoao Estrada Olivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2012), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Our jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion is limited to questions of law and constitutional claims, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D), and Estrada Olivera has not established that the BIA used an incorrect standard or considered impermissible factors in making its discretionary determination, see Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.2007). In addition, the agency did not err in relying on the 2009 police report in evaluating his eligibility as a matter of discretion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995) ("The sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair."); Torres-Valdivias v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.2015) ("In the context of the BIA's discretionary decisions, we have noted that 'it is proper [for the BIA] to look to probative evidence outside the record of conviction . to determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted.' ") (quoting Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir.2004)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (error is required to establish due process violation).
Finally, Estrada Olivera has not established that the BIA failed to consider his contentions on appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.