Douglas Escobar Mazariegos v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 9 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOUGLAS ESCOBAR MAZARIEGOS, No. 20-72948 AKA Bulmaro Salazar Lopez, Agency No. A200-700-008 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 7, 2023** Phoenix, Arizona Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Douglas Escobar Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) dismissal of his request for cancellation of * 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). removal. In the context of cancellation, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s or BIA’s denials of discretionary relief, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), but we retain jurisdiction to review de novo questions of law, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part. 1. To the extent that Petitioner argues that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard for evaluating “extreme and unusual hardship,” we have jurisdiction, Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009), and we disagree. The BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning and explained why it agreed with her decision. The IJ evaluated the hardship to Petitioner’s children, both individually and in the aggregate, considering numerous factors. Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I&N Dec. 56, 63–64 (BIA 2001); Matter of Andazola-Rivas, 23 I&N Dec. 319, 323–24 (BIA 2002); Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467, 468–73 (BIA 2002). The BIA’s decision noted that those factors included “relevant medical and educational concerns, country conditions, and the resulting emotional and financial consequences of removal.” 2. To the extent that Petitioner argues that the BIA erred by incorrectly applying a correct legal standard to undisputed facts, we adopt the approach from De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1282 (9th Cir. 2022). There, we held that “we can assume statutory jurisdiction arguendo” over whether the BIA properly applied the legal standard for “extreme and unusual hardship” because 2 “the jurisdictional issue is complex, but the claim asserted clearly lacks merit.” 49 F.4th at 1291 (emphasis omitted). As there, we reject the claim on the merits. Petitioner claims exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children, but the record shows that Petitioner’s parents live in Guatemala, that his children can speak Spanish and read and write some Spanish, and that none of his children exhibited a physical or mental disability. 3. To the extent that Petitioner argues that the IJ abused his discretion by failing to accept late evidence, we have jurisdiction, and reject that claim. See Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that we review for abuse …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals