Opinion
No. 14-72626
09-21-2016
WALTER DANILO CABRERA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A070-940-838 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Walter Danilo Cabrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA properly determined that Cabrera is subject to the heightened hardship standard under NACARA due to his conviction. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c). To the extent that Cabrera challenges the BIA's discretionary determination that he failed to establish the hardship required to qualify for relief under NACARA, we lack jurisdiction. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (the statute expressly precludes the court from reviewing the agency's eligibility determination for NACARA special rule cancellation of removal). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Cabrera's remaining contentions regarding his credibility and eligibility for NACARA. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court need not reach a contention when another dispositive determination has been made).
We lack jurisdiction to review Cabrera's unexhausted contention that he was denied a full and fair hearing. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (procedural due process claims must be exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.