NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERONIMO MARCOS-SANTIAGO, AKA No. 16-71596 Santiago Geronimo Marcos, AKA Geronimo Marcos Santiago, AKA Marcos Santiago Agency No. A205-299-991 Geronimo, AKA Geronimo Santiago Marcos, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Gerónimo Marcos-Santiago petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) * 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). decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing legal questions de novo and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, see Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022), we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. 1. We have jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to deny cancellation of removal to the extent Marcos-Santiago argues that the IJ “incorrectly relied on” In re Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319 (B.I.A. 2002), and instead “should have applied” In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (B.I.A. 2002). See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]hether an IJ failed to apply a controlling standard governing a discretionary determination is a question over which we have jurisdiction under [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(D).”). The IJ did not err by citing Andazola-Rivas, which is one of “the starting points for any analysis of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 469, and we deny the petition for review to the extent Marcos-Santiago argues otherwise. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision regarding cancellation of removal insofar as Marcos-Santiago argues that the BIA’s “application of [Gonzalez Recinas] to the facts” of his case was “flawed.” See Mendez-Castro, 2 552 F.3d at 979. Similarly, Marcos-Santiago’s argument that the BIA did not consider a specific factor—his separation from his children—“is inherently intertwined with the IJ’s assessment of the facts, which we lack jurisdiction to review.” Id. We therefore dismiss the petition for review to the extent it challenges these aspects of the BIA’s decision. 2. We deny the petition for review to the extent it challenges the denial of asylum. The agency found that Marcos-Santiago’s asylum application was untimely and that he lacked any valid justification for the late filing. These findings dispose of his asylum claim, and he fails to address them in his brief here. Therefore, he has forfeited any such challenge. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals