NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID REGALADO

- RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 1268 Agency No. A206

- 081

- 773

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2023 ** Phoenix , Arizona
Before: GOULD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. David Regalado

- Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petit i ons for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from a decision by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying an application 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). 

# FILED

SEP 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 1268

removal but granting voluntary departure. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. 1. The only issue raised before the BIA and in the petition for review was whether the IJ erred in denying a motion for continuance. Regal a do claims that this
decision both denied him due process and was an abuse of discretion. To the ex t ent that Regal a do simply contend s that the denial of the motion was an abuse of
di scretion, we lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2 )(B)(i), which prevents us
from review ing “any judgment regarding ” cancellation of removal

. See Patel v.
Garland , 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022). However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D),

we retain jurisdiction over “constitutional claims or questions of law.” We therefore have jurisdiction to review Regal a do’s due process claim and do so de novo. See
Cruz Rendon v. Holder , 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010).
2

. Regalado claims that the IJ’s advancement of a merits hearing and the subsequent denial of a motion to continue that hearing denied him due process. Even assuming that Regal a do exhausted this claim, we find no constitutional infirmity in the agency proceedings. “Deportation proceedings violate due process if the alien does not receive a ‘full and fair’ hearing and suffers prejudice as a result.” Perez

Lastor v. INS , 208 F.3d 773, 777 (9th Cir. 2000). “Prejudice occurs when the rights of the alien have been transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact the results of the proceedings.” Jacinto v. INS , 208 F.3d 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2000).3 22

- 1268

a . Regalado claims that the withdrawal of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and C onvention Against Torture relief “may not have been considered and intelligent” and that he “had no opportunity to understand why he was ineligible for” relief other than voluntary departure. But we “typically allow IJs to rely on representations by counsel.” Troncoso

- Oviedo v. Garland , 43 F.4th 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2022). Regalado “was represented by counsel, who confirmed that the
two had reviewed alternat ive relief and decided to waive those claims.” Id. The IJ
had adjourned the merits hearing to allow Regalado to confer with his attorney, and, after the hearing resumed , the attorney confirmed that she “had ample opportunity
to consult with [her] client,” Regalado “understands what’s going on in his case,”
and he only “is seeking post

- conclusion voluntary departure

. ”
b

. More importantly, Regalado fail ed to establish that the granting of a continuance would likely “impact the results of the proceedings.” Jacinto v. INS , 208 F.3d at 728. Although “[t]he standard does not demand absolute certainty,”
Zolotukhin v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2005), a petitioner at least “must present plausible scenarios in which the outcome of the proceedings would
have been different.” Tamayo

- Tamayo v. Holder , 725 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). Regalado does n ot claim that he should have been granted any form
of relief other than voluntary departure, which he re ceived

. See De la Cruz v. INS , 951 F.2d 226, 229 (9th Cir. 1991).4 22

- 1268

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.