FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 13 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVIER FRANCISCO CASTILLO No. 19-71665 CASTILLO, Agency No. A095-734-805 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 10, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. Francisco Javier Castillo Castillo petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where . . . the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). We consider only the grounds relied upon by the BIA in reaching its decision. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We review factual determinations for substantial evidence, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and legal questions, including questions of our own jurisdiction, de novo. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition in part and dismiss the petition in part. 1. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in finding Castillo mentally competent in his removal proceedings and in not imposing additional procedural safeguards. Here, the IJ complied with the process prescribed for determining competency by questioning Castillo about his competence. See Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474, 479 (BIA 2011). And despite finding Castillo competent, the IJ also found that Castillo’s representation by counsel was a sufficient procedural safeguard. See Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 988 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 2. We decline to consider Castillo’s claim that the IJ erred in finding that his entry to the United States did not establish his eligibility for adjustment of status under Matter of Quilantan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 285 (BIA 2010), because Castillo has never sought adjustment of status and conceded his ineligibility. 3. We lack jurisdiction over Castillo’s cancellation of removal claim. The BIA affirmed only the IJ’s discretionary determination that Castillo had not demonstrated exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen sons, and we lack jurisdiction over such discretionary denials of relief. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), 1229b(b)(1). Nor does Castillo claim that the IJ committed a legal error that would permit review. Cf. Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 494–96 (9th Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals