FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 14 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRAULIO LEON-JUARICO, No. 18-73431 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-855-799 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 12, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,*** District Judge. * 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 Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. Petitioner Leon-Juarico requests review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA’s) decision reversing an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) grant of his application for cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. Leon-Juarico asserts that the BIA (1) legally erred by applying the improper standard of review and (2) violated his right to due process by insufficiently explaining its rationale for reversing the IJ. The government asserts that we lack jurisdiction over the petition because Leon-Juarico has not presented a colorable legal question. We review whether the BIA applied the correct standard of review de novo, Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012), and whether the BIA provided a reasoned explanation for its decision for an abuse of discretion, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition. 1. Leon-Juarico presents colorable legal questions that invoke our jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, the alleged violation need not be substantial, but the claim must have some possible validity.”). He contends that the BIA reviewed the IJ’s factual findings de novo, a legal error, and failed to provide a clear rationale for reversing the IJ, violating due process. Both of Leon-Juarico’s claims sufficiently allege legal error; they do not “merely [] attempt to cloak an abuse of discretion argument in the garb of a question of law.” Arteaga-De Alvarez v. 2 Holder, 704 F.3d 730, 736 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review Leon-Juarico’s petition. 2. The BIA applied the correct standards of review by reviewing the IJ’s factual findings for clear error and the IJ’s discretionary determination de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (“Facts determined by the [IJ] . . . shall be reviewed only to determine whether the findings of the [IJ] are clearly erroneous.”); id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (The BIA “may review questions of law, discretion, and judgment . . . in appeals from decisions of [IJs] de novo.”). Contrary to Leon- Juarico’s contentions, the BIA recognized the “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to Leon-Juarico’s son upon his removal, agreeing with the IJ that “[p]articularly notable is the hardship to [Leon-Juarico’s] son . . . as [he] ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals