NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR YANDARIO CABRERA No. 16-70512 AVALOS, Agency No. A070-046-474 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 11, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Edgar Cabrera Avalos (“Mr. Cabrera”) petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The first decision, issued in April 2013, reversed a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting Mr. Cabrera relief from removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”). The second decision, issued in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. February 2016, summarily dismissed Mr. Cabrera’s appeal from an IJ decision granting his request for voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction to the extent it challenges the April 2013 BIA decision and deny it to the extent it challenges the February 2016 BIA decision. In 2007, Mr. Cabrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b and special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA, among other forms of relief. Mr. Cabrera’s wife (“Mrs. Cabrera”) sought similar relief as a derivative applicant of Mr. Cabrera’s applications and “independently through her own applications.” In 2011, the IJ granted Mr. Cabrera cancellation of removal under NACARA and decided that Mrs. Cabrera was “entitled to derivative benefits under her husband’s NACARA cancellation of removal application.” The IJ accordingly declined to consider the Cabreras’ applications for cancellation of removal under § 1229b. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) contested the IJ’s grants of relief to the Cabreras in a consolidated appeal to the BIA. On April 10, 2013, the BIA sustained DHS’s appeal, holding that Mr. Cabrera was “barred from cancellation of removal [under § 1229b] and special rules cancellation of removal under NACARA,” and that Mrs. Cabrera, as a derivative beneficiary on Mr. Cabrera’s NACARA application, was also ineligible for special rule cancellation of 2 removal. The BIA noted, however, that Mrs. Cabrera “remain[ed] eligible for cancellation of removal” under § 1229b, and “remanded to the Immigration Judge for further consideration of her case.” Mr. Cabrera did not file a motion to reconsider at the BIA at that time, nor did he petition for review of the BIA’s order within 30 days of the date the order issued. On February 20, 2014, the IJ held a hearing on remand. The IJ severed the Cabreras’ cases to allow Mrs. Cabrera to pursue her independent application for cancellation of removal under § 1229b. With respect to Mr. Cabrera, the IJ observed that it was “clear” following the BIA’s ruling that “the only additional relief that [Mr. Cabrera was] statutorily eligible for . . . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals