Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A030-322-273.
YASUYUKI NAGAO, aka Robert Yasuyuri Nagao aka Robert Yasuyuvi aka Yasuyuvi Robert Nagao, Petitioner, Pro se, Manhattan Beach, CA.
For ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent: Joshua E. Braunstein, Assistant Director, OIL, Carlos J. Ruiz, Esquire, 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.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Yasuyuki Nagao, a native and citizen of Japan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (" BIA" ) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (" IJ" ) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 937 (9th Cir. 2005), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the order of removal against Nagao because he was found removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and his convictions involved crimes for which a sentence of at least one year may be imposed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2011).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture because the evidence in the record does not " compel a different conclusion from the one reached by the BIA." Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Nagao's contention that the BIA violated his right to due process by summarily affirming the IJ's decision because this is not a colorable claim. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 2007). We lack jurisdiction to consider Nagao's contention that the IJ violated his due process right to a full and fair hearing because he did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.