NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE JUAN MARTINEZ-SALAS, AKA No. 20-70741 Juan Martinez-Salas, Agency No. A206-236-804 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 19, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, and Circuit Judges. Jose Juan Martinez-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to terminate and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed * 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). by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not err in its analysis or conclusion that Martinez-Salas’s contention that the IJ failed to consider his children’s right to family unity under the Fourteenth Amendment is without merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (denial of an application for cancellation of removal does not implicate constitutional rights regarding family unity). We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Martinez-Salas did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal, where Martinez-Salas’s remaining challenges to the determination do not 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). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Salas’s motion to terminate where his challenge to the immigration court’s jurisdiction is foreclosed 2 20-70741 by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1159 (9th Cir. 2019), because he received a notice of hearing that included the time and date of the hearing. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 20-70741 20-70741 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Martinez-Salas v. Merrick Garland 25 January 2022 Agency Unpublished 2e8968d690528bc5f6b76843a62f5c137754962c
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals