OSCAR GONZALEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72886 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR CHAVEZ GONZALEZ, Petitioner, No. 11-72886 Agency No. A090-138-578 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2014** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Oscar Chavez Gonzalez, 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 order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Zarate * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012), and review de novo questions of law, Maldonado-Galindo v. Gonzales, 456 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chavez Gonzalez was previously granted cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, the agency did not err in determining that Chavez Gonzalez did not meet his burden of proof to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal, where he previously received that form of relief. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(4), 1229b(c)(6). We lack jurisdiction to review Chavez Gonzalez’s due process claims because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-72886

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.