N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GREGOR IO POR TILLA JUAR EZ, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS, III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71903 Age n c y No. A205-527-967
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARR IS, an d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Gre gorio Portilla

Jua re z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic a tion for c anc e lla

tion of
re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wde novo 

# FIL ED FEB 22 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).que stions of la w a nd c la im s of due proc e ss viola t ions. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not e rr by de ny i ng Portilla Jua re z ’ s a pplic a tion for c a

n c e lla tion of re m ova l, whe re he la c ke d a ny qua lify ing re lat ive s at the tim e of his fina l
re m ova l he aring. Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1229b(b)(1)(D) (a n a pplic ant for c anc e lla

tion of
re m ova l m

u st e sta blish there q

uisite ha rdship to a

“ spouse , pa

re nt or c hild” ), 1101(b)(1) (“ The te rm

‘ c hild’ m e ans a

n unm arrie d pe rson unde r twe nty -one y e ars of a ge . . . .” ). Portilla

Jua re z ’ s c onte ntions tha

t the a ge n c y

e rre d in re ly ing on Matte r of Isidro-Zamorano , 25 I. & N. De c . 829, 829 (B IA 2012), in de te rm ining his da ughte r wa s not a

qua lify ing re lative and should ha ve a pplie d the dic t iona

ry de finition of c hild a

re fore c lose d by

our de c ision in Me n d

e z-Garc ia v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 655, 663-65 (9th C ir. 2016) (de fe rring to theB IA’ s c onc lusion in Matte r of Isidro-Zamorano that a

n a pplic ant for c anc e lla

t ion of re m ova l m

ust show ha

rdship to qua lify ing re lative a t the tim e the IJ a djudic a te s the a pplic a tion, a

nd re je c ting pe titione r’ s a

rgum e n t tha t a ge nc y should ha

ve use d dic tiona

ry de finition); Lata v
. IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000). W e are not pe rsua de d by Portilla Jua re z ’ s c onte n t ion tha

t M atte r of Isidro-Zamorano is distinguisha ble
. Portilla Jua re z ’ s c o nte n tions tha

t his dueproc e ss rights we re viola te d be c a use he ha d a

n a lle g e d se ttle d e xpe c tation tha t he c ould re c e ive c anc e lla tion of

1 5
- 7 1 9 0 3 2re m ova l, or be c a use the a g e nc y

did not a djudic a te his a

pplic a tion for re lie f be fore his da ughte r turne d twe n ty -one are a l so fore c lose d by Me nde z-Garc ia , 840 F.3d a

t 665-69. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 5
- 7 1 9 0 3 3