Case: 21-152, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARNULFO BARENCA-RAMIREZ, No. 21-152 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-554-246 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 29, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: BOGGS,*** M. SMITH, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Arnulfo Barenca-Ramirez’s application for cancellation of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. * 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 Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 21-152, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 6 Barenca-Ramirez petitioned this court for review, challenging the agency’s determination as to the hardship to his family and its denial of his due-process claim. We dismiss Barenca-Ramirez’s challenge to the agency’s hardship determination for lack of jurisdiction and deny his due-process claim. The Attorney General may cancel Barenca-Ramirez’s removal if he: (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least ten years at the time of his application; (2) has been a person of good moral character during that period; (3) has not been convicted of certain criminal offenses; and (4) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022). 1. We lack jurisdiction to review purely factual challenges to the findings underpinning the agency’s hardship determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). However, we can review constitutional claims or questions of law pertaining to the agency’s hardship determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We lack jurisdiction to review Barenca-Ramirez’s hardship challenge because he disputes only the “factual and predictive findings” of the IJ. Barenca-Ramirez 2 Case: 21-152, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 6 challenges the IJ’s findings as to the effect of removal on Barenca-Ramirez’s landscaping business, his medical condition, his daughters’ sources of financial support, and their emotional well-being. In short, Barenca-Ramirez urges us to reweigh his evidence, an exercise that we lack jurisdiction to pursue. See Vilchiz- Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012). Barenca-Ramirez also argues that the Board erred by not considering the hardships that his removal would impose on his wife, Guadalupe Salcedo, who is a lawful permanent resident. However, Barenca-Ramirez acknowledged to both …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals