Case: 21-38, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Rocio Jimenez-Corona, No. 21-38 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-299-828 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 13, 2023** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Rocio Jimenez-Corona, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Jimenez-Corona does not challenge the BIA’s determination that her asylum * 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). Case: 21-38, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 5 application was time barred, and we consider that issue waived. We review the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (internal citation omitted). “When, like here, the BIA issues its own decision but adopts particular parts of the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). To the extent that we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part. The BIA determined that Jimenez-Corona is ineligible for cancellation of removal because she failed to demonstrate that removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her wife, who is a U.S. citizen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Jimenez-Corona suggests that the BIA violated her “due process rights” by failing to consider all relevant evidence. We generally lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decisions and factual findings in cancellation of removal proceedings, but we may review colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. See Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622–23 (2022) (addressing the scope of federal courts’ review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D)). “To determine whether we have jurisdiction over claims labeled as due process violations, we must look beyond the label,” Mendez- Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001)), and ensure that the claim is “more than an argument that the IJ abused his discretion,” id. (quoting Martinez-Rosas 2 21-38 Case: 21-38, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 5 v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005)). Looking beyond the label, Jimenez-Corona’s claim is essentially an objection to the IJ’s and BIA’s assessments of the facts. Although we have yet to conclude what effect, if any, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Guerrero- Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals