NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS GENNIFER SERRANO, Nos. 18-72089 19-71412 Petitioner, Agency No. A029-260-263 v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting MEMORANDUM* Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Luis Gennifer Serrano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for special rule cancellation of removal under * 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). § 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), adjustment of status, asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 18-72089), and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider, terminate, or reopen (petition No. 19-71412). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020), and the denial of a motion to reopen, Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 18-72089, and we deny the petition for review in No. 19- 71412. As to petition No. 18-72089, Serrano’s contention that the IJ violated his right to due process by applying a heightened discretionary standard to his application for adjustment of status fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (“To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.”). Serrano’s contentions that the IJ was biased, the IJ ignored evidence, or the BIA violated his right to due process fail as unsupported by the record. See id. 2 18-72089 & 19-71412 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denials of NACARA cancellation of removal and adjustment of status because Serrano does not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016) (disagreement with weighing of equities does not raise a colorable question of law). As to asylum and withholding of deportation, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Serrano failed to establish he suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution. See Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals