NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO GUERRERO-ESPINOSA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-884

Agency No.

A200-551-474

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2024**

San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges

Antonio Guerrero-Espinosa (“Petitioner” or “Guerrero-Espinosa”), a native 

and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 

decision upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for 

* 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).

FILED

JUN 18 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-884

cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Guerrero-Espinosa argued 

before the agency that he met all of the statutory requirements for cancellation of 

removal and should receive the relief he requested as a matter of discretion. As the 

parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We dismiss the 

petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we lack jurisdiction to review 

discretionary denials of relief under § 1229b for cancellation of removal. See Patel 

v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 347 (2022); Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 

999 (9th Cir. 2021). However, we retain jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ 

arguments that present colorable “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Our jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D) is limited, and 

petitioners like Guerrero-Espinosa cannot “create the jurisdiction that Congress 

chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in 

constitutional garb.” Torres–Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001).

Even accepting Petitioner’s claim that his hardship arguments apply with 

equal force to the agency’s discretionary denial of relief, these arguments are nothing 

more than disagreements with how the agency weighed the evidence in determining 

that he was not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion. The IJ and BIA 

conducted a thorough review of the hardship factors that Petitioner submitted, citing 

Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I&N Dec. 56, 59 (BIA 2001) (en banc), for the 
3 23-884

proposition that all evidence should be considered in the aggregate. Still, the BIA 

reaffirmed that Petitioner’s positive equities, including his cumulative hardship 

evidence, were outweighed by the negative factors, including multiple DUI 

convictions. See Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2012).

Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, there is a dearth of evidence on this record 

to show that the IJ, or the BIA, applied incorrect legal standards, failed to consider 

all of Petitioner’s hardship evidence, or otherwise committed constitutional or legal 

error in determining that he did not merit cancellation as a matter of discretion. We 

are thus left without jurisdiction to reexamine the agency’s discretionary denial of 

relief. Because the IJ was entitled to deny relief as a matter of discretion—even 

assuming that Petitioner had met the statutory requirements of § 1229b(b)(1)(A)–

(D)—we cannot consider Petitioner’s remaining arguments. See Wilkinson v. 

Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 n.4 (2024) (reaffirming that an IJ’s “discretionary 

determination on whether or not to grant cancellation of removal in the particular 

case is not reviewable as a question of law”) (emphasis in original); see also RomeroTorres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he ultimate decision 

whether to grant relief, regardless of eligibility, rests with the Attorney General.”).

PETITION DISMISSED.