NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FERNANDO RAMIREZ RUIZ, No. 19-72117 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-121-608 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Fernando Ramirez Ruiz, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions 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). law, including claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not err in concluding that Ramirez Ruiz failed to establish the IJ violated his right to due process by exhibiting bias. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding no due process violation where the noncitizen failed to show that “the IJ had a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”). We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Ramirez Ruiz did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives for purposes of cancellation of removal where the petition does not further raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Martinez- Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Ramirez Ruiz’s reliance on Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020), is misplaced. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of a legal standard to undisputed facts is a legal question under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)); see also Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (Ramadan 2 19-72117 does not apply to the subjective hardship standard). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 19-72117 19-72117 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Fernando Ramirez Ruiz v. Merrick Garland 20 December 2021 Agency Unpublished 1cf544d266bd1a982bc1717ea7e621e9d2594e21
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals