Jose Parra-Valenzuela v. Eric Holder, Jr.

583 F. App'x 692

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2014
• Docket: 12-70069
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Parra-Valenzuela petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). We deny the petition.

(1) In general, we do not have jurisdiction to review decisions “regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®. However, there is an exception for “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

(2) Parra asserts that the BIA committed legal error when it determined that he had not shown good moral character 1 because he engaged in marriage fraud. We disagree. Marriage fraud is a factor that the BIA can consider when it exercises its discretion regarding good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) (final paragraph, catch-all provision); see also Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213-14 (9th Cir.1991). The record shows that the only character evidence before the BIA was the undisputed evidence that Parra had committed marriage fraud, 2 and we lack jurisdiction to review its discretionary decision that he, therefore, lacked good moral character. 3 To the extent that Parra is making a due process claim also, nothing before us indicates that he was denied a fundamentally fair hearing. See Gutierrez, 662 F.3d at 1091.

(3) Finally, Parra has not presented arguments about the denial of voluntary departure 4 and has, therefore, waived any issue regarding that. 5 If he intended that his good moral character argument would apply to both cancellation and voluntary departure, what we have said regarding cancellation would apply to both issues.

Petition DENIED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 . See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(B) (cancellation of removal).

2 . Before us Parra suggests that the BIA should have discussed 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G), which refers to marriage fraud in the context of grounds for removal, but that is inapposite to the cancellation issue before us.

3 . See Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1087 n. 4 (9th Cir.2011); Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.2006).

4 . See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1)(B).

5 . See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).