NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FRANCISCO ANTONIO NORIEGA- No. 19-72943 BEJARANO, AKA Francisco Antonio Bejarano, AKA Antonio Rodriguez- Agency No. A205-931-030 Huerta, AKA Antonio Rodriguez-Vuelta, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** S.R. THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. * 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). *** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Francisco Noriega-Bejarano, 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 (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal and his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo jurisdictional issues and claims of legal or constitutional error. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Id. at 1246. Where, as here, the BIA has conducted a de novo review of the IJ’s decision, we review the BIA’s decision and any of the IJ’s reasoning that the BIA has incorporated as its own. Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. I We lack jurisdiction to review Noriega-Bejarano’s various challenges to the agency’s discretionary determination that his removal would not result in the requisite hardship to his qualifying family members. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Most of Noriega-Bejarano’s contentions are simply “an attempt to ‘cloak[] an abuse of discretion argument’ in the garb of a question of law.” Mendez-Castro v. 2 Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001)). Insofar as Noriega- Bejarano challenges the legal standard applied by the agency, we lack jurisdiction over this argument because it is not colorable: The IJ and the BIA cited and applied the relevant legal standards in assessing hardship in the aggregate, “which is all our review requires.” Id.; see also Vilchiz-Soto, 688 F.3d at 644 (explaining we retain jurisdiction to review only “colorable legal or constitutional claim[s]”). II The BIA did not abuse its discretion by affirming the IJ’s decision that Noriega-Bejarano lacked good cause for a continuance, where Noriega-Bejarano had already been granted several lengthy continuances, the government opposed the latest request, and Noriega-Bejarano has never been able to identify with any specificity what additional evidence might …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals