NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MIGUEL ANGEL QUINTANA-PAYAN, No. 20-72569 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-402-793 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 18, 2022 Submission Withdrawn July 8, 2022 Resubmitted June 20, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, MILLER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Miguel Angel Quintana-Payan, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and § 2242(d) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1690–91 (2020). We deny the petition. 1. Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622–27 (2022). Quintana-Payan argues that the agency committed legal error by failing to consider the severity of his wife’s health problems and the impact that would have on her ability to care for their children if the family accompanied him to Mexico. But as the BIA correctly noted, the IJ’s decision explicitly stated that he “considered her medical issues as part of the aggregate hardship consideration.” Quintana-Payan’s complaint is therefore not that the agency failed to consider this factor at all, but rather that the agency did not give it the weight he thinks it should have. We lack jurisdiction to review that issue. See Patel, 142 S. Ct. at 1622–25; Safaryan v. Barr, 975 F.3d 976, 989 (9th Cir. 2020). 2. The BIA correctly held that Quintana-Payan’s proposed social group of “returnees to Mexico from the United States” is not cognizable and that his claim for withholding of removal on that ground therefore failed. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010). Quintana-Payan argues that Delgado-Ortiz is no longer good law on this point, but that is wrong. See Barbosa 2 v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2019). Nor has Quintana-Payan overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the evidence in his case. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000). In explaining that Quintana-Payan’s proposed group was not cognizable because it is too broad, the BIA quoted authority focusing on whether a petitioner had “supported [his or her] proposed social group . . . with evidence that supports a favorable determination” under the applicable standards. Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals