NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERVANDO ALONSO FLORES, AKA No. 20-70788 Roberto G. Trujillo, Agency No. A048-137-953 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 19, 2021** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Servando Alonso Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and his motion for a * 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). continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Alonso Flores contends that the IJ failed to consider multiple factors relevant to cancellation of removal, but his contention fails as unsupported by the record, and we otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Szonyi v. Barr, 942 F.3d 874, 896 (9th Cir. 2019) (“This court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of a discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal, but it does have jurisdiction to review whether the IJ considered relevant evidence in making this decision.”). Thus, Alonso Flores’s cancellation of removal claim fails. We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence Alonso Flores submitted with his motion to remand would not alter the prior discretionary determination denying cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) . . . bars jurisdiction where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided.”). We reject Alonso Flores’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his motion to remand as unsupported by the record. 2 20-70788 The agency did not abuse its discretion in granting a shorter continuance than that requested by Alonso Flores. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting out the factors to consider in good cause analysis). Thus, Alonso Flores’s contention that the agency violated his right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We do not consider the materials …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals