NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIO GOMEZ-BELTRAN, No. 16-72518 17-70740 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-485-184 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* and ORDER Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 3, 2020** Phoenix, Arizona Before: GRABER, HURWITZ, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Antonio Gomez-Beltran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”): one denying a motion to reopen, and the other denying a motion to remand and dismissing an appeal from the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying cancellation of * 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). removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petitions in part and otherwise deny them.1 1. The proceedings before the IJ were not legally defective merely because the interpreter was not formally sworn in. The interpreter was properly sworn in during an earlier hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.5. Any purported deficiencies in the translation did not “prejudice[] the outcome of [the] hearing.” Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1994). Gomez does not identify any mistranslation relevant to his criminal history, the issue that formed the basis for the denial of relief. 2. The IJ did not err in failing to employ additional procedural safeguards because of Gomez’s mental state. Gomez did not show indicia of mental incompetency and was afforded ample opportunity to consult with his attorney and to present evidence. See Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 987–89 (9th Cir. 2018). Nor did the BIA engage in improper fact-finding in rejecting this argument. Because Gomez raised the competency issue for the first time before the BIA, the BIA was required to assess the existing record to determine whether further proceedings were necessary. See Mejia v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 1118, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2017). 3. We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation 1 We grant the government’s motion to take judicial notice of a subsequent decision of the BIA denying Gomez’s motion for reconsideration. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of agency records). 2 of removal. Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We therefore do not address the agency’s alternative finding that Gomez could not establish the good moral character required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(1)(B). 4. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez’s motion to remand for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 880 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating standard of review). Gomez did not provide his former attorney with an “adequate opportunity ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals