Court Opinion

ID: 9370450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 18:00:39.777467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.687206
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 13 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL LOPEZ ARELLANO,                           No.   20-71223

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A201-021-940

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted February 8, 2023**
                                  Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Miguel Lopez-Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered

the United States in 1994 without inspection. He conceded removability but

sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s

      *
             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).
(“IJ”) denial of his request for cancellation of removal. Petitioner timely seeks our

review. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

      1. Petitioner challenges the IJ’s determination that he is ineligible for

cancellation of removal because he failed to demonstrate that removal would result

in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children, who are United

States citizens. We have held that, in the context of cancellation of removal, the

agency’s determination that a noncitizen did not demonstrate “exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) is ordinarily

unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). De La Rosa-Rodriguez v.

Garland, 49 F.4th 1282, 1286–87 (9th Cir. 2022). But we retain jurisdiction to

consider a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact, including whether

the agency applied the correct legal standard in assessing a petitioner’s claim for

discretionary relief. Id. at 1285. Here, Petitioner fails to raise any such issue.

Although Petitioner frames the IJ’s analysis of the hardship issue as a “legal

question,” it is apparent from his brief that he actually seeks a reweighing of the

facts. To the extent that Petitioner disagrees with the agency’s weighing of

hardship factors or its conclusion, we lack jurisdiction to consider those issues.1

1
 Petitioner also filed a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
28(j), arguing that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland,
141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), he should have been permitted to accrue additional
“continuous physical presence” after the date the Notice to Appear was issued.
But Niz-Chavez has no bearing on Petitioner’s eligibility for cancellation of

                                           2
      2. Petitioner also argues that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to conduct the

removal proceedings because the Notice to Appear failed to include information

about the date and time of the removal proceedings—even though a subsequently

filed Notice of Hearing provided the missing information. Our decision in United

States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), ”), cert.

denied, No. 22-6281, 2023 WL 350056 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2023), forecloses that

jurisdictional argument.

      PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

removal because his lack of physical presence was not a ground for denying the
application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).

                                          3