NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO SALGADO-VASQUEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70517 

Agency No. A075-132-417 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Salgado-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to terminate proceedings 

and his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of 

removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

* 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

DEC 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-70517 

questions of law and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to 

terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part 

and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Salgado-Vasquez’s motion 

to terminate because he failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alteration to 

his notice to appear (“NTA”). See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068-70 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (petitioner was required to show prejudice to succeed on motion to 

terminate based on a defective NTA). We reject as unsupported by the record 

Salgado-Vasquez’s contentions that the NTA contained a forged certificate of 

service.

Salgado-Vasquez’s contentions that the IJ violated his right to due process 

by determining that he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime without a 

hearing fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error 

and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); see also Dent v. Sessions, 900 

F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 2018) (to show prejudice, petitioner must show the 

outcome of proceedings may have been affected by the alleged due process 

violation). Thus, Salgado-Vasquez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims 

fail. 

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of 

removal because Salgado-Vasquez raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim. 
 3 20-70517 

See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005) (court’s 

jurisdiction to review challenges to the IJ’s discretionary determination is limited 

to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law).

The record does not support Salgado-Vasquez’s contentions that the BIA or 

IJ failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claims. See 

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he BIA does not 

have to write an exegesis on every contention.” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.

2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the 

record).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 6) is 

otherwise denied as moot. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.