FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO CASILLAS RAMIREZ, No. 17-73233 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-158-006 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 14, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Sergio Casillas Ramirez (“Ramirez”) petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming a denial of his request for a continuance of his removal proceedings. In its order, the BIA also declined to * 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). review the government’s decision to initiate removal proceedings against Ramirez, or to remand his case so that the government could further consider whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion. Ramirez petitions for review of each of those determinations. He also argues that he was deprived of due process because his notice to appear (“NTA”) lacked a date and time, and that the appointment of immigration judges (“IJs”) and members of the BIA violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.1 The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, so we need not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA conducts “its own review of the evidence and law rather than simply adopting the immigration judge’s decision,” our review is “limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1. During the proceedings, the IJ incorrectly stated that Ramirez was ineligible for prosecutorial discretion. Ramirez now argues that his case should be remanded to the IJ, who should “properly rule on the record” as to whether he is entitled to prosecutorial discretion. However, we lack jurisdiction to review the 1 We GRANT the government’s motion to strike Ramirez’s supplemental brief, and any arguments therein, that was filed without this court’s permission [Dkt Entry No. 25]. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(c). 2 government’s failure to exercise prosecutorial discretion because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) strips courts of jurisdiction “to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.” Under this provision, decisions to “adjudicate cases or to refer them to IJs for hearing are not reviewable.” Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 236 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2001). The IJ’s erroneous conclusion that Ramirez was ineligible for prosecutorial discretion does not on its own warrant remand. The government may reconsider its exercise of prosecutorial discretion at any ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals