NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO JACUINDE MEDINA, No. 21-1191 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-464-461 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 11, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Francisco Jacuinde Medina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. We have jurisdiction * 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). pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. Where, as here, the BIA affirms the IJ, cites to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and supplements with its own reasoning, we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). 1. Petitioner argues that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to conduct the removal proceedings because the Notice to Appear failed to include information about the date and time of the removal proceedings—even though a subsequently filed Notice of Hearing provided the missing information. Petitioner did not substantively brief this argument before the BIA, but the BIA denied it on the merits. See Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, our decision in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023), forecloses this jurisdictional argument. There, we held that the omission of the date and time of the hearing on the initial notice to appear does not divest the IJ of subject- matter jurisdiction. 39 F.4th at 1193 & n.7. 2. Petitioner challenges the agency’s determination that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he failed to demonstrate that removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children, who are 2 21-1191 United States citizens. We lack jurisdiction over this this claim. See Martinez- Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Although we retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Petitioner’s argument that the agency failed to consider hardship evidence regarding his children is not supported by the record, and his remaining arguments …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals