Case Name: Alejandro MENDEZ-MADERO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 15-71135
Parties: Alejandro MENDEZ-MADERO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 602–604

Head Matter:
Alejandro MENDEZ-MADERO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71135
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner
Regina Byrd, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Alejandro Mendez-Madero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of-the Board of Imnligration Appeals' ("BIA") order sustaining the Department of Homeland Security's appeal from an immigration judge's decision granting cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Because Mendez-Madero was found removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)© based on his conviction for an offense relating to a controlled substance, our jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)—(D); Cheuk Fung S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2010) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) restricts review of final orders of removal based on certain enumerated crimes, including controlled substance offenses, but the court retains jurisdiction where the petition raises constitutional claims or questions of law).
Mendez-Madero has not established a due process violation, where the BIA did not err in declining to consider new evidence Mendez-Madero submitted with his brief on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) ("[T]he Board will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals."); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice); cf. Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Where the BIA fails to follow its own regulations and makes factual findings, it commits an error of law...." (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Mendez-Madero's contention that the BIA failed to address rehabilitation as a factor in its decision is not supported by the record.
Mendez-Madero does not raise any other colorable claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) ("traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.