NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUSTAVO VALADEZ MARTINEZ, No. 19-72631 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-538-990 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 13, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN, FORREST, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge BUMATAY Gustavo Valadez Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Because we lack jurisdiction over Valadez Martinez’s petition, we dismiss it. Valadez Martinez argues that the IJ and BIA erred in determining that he did not establish that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives because they failed to properly apply the legal standard to the undisputed facts. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). But as we have held, “we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s subjective, discretionary determination that [a petitioner] did not demonstrate ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).” Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law[,] . . . no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b, [the cancellation of removal provision].”). Nonetheless, Valadez Martinez argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020), establishes that his challenge falls within the exception to this jurisdictional bar set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which provides that the limitation on judicial review in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) “shall [not] be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Specifically, Valadez Martinez argues that Guerrero-Lasprilla’s conclusion that the phrase “questions of 2 law” in § 1252(a)(2)(D) includes “the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts,” 140 S. Ct. at 1067, provides for judicial review of whether the BIA correctly applied the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard to the facts of his case. Not so. Long before the Court concluded in Guerrero-Lasprilla that the phrase “questions of law” in § 1252(a)(2)(D) includes “the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts,” id., we concluded the same. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the principle announced by the Supreme Court in Guerrero-Lasprilla has long coexisted with our jurisprudence under § 1252, including our holding that the hardship determination is a subjective, discretionary determination …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals