Court Opinion

ID: 9407433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 22:00:56.005745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.325315
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            JUL 6 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO CATALAN ALARCON,                           No. 21-1109
                                                  Agency No.
             Petitioner,                          A070-754-677
 v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                              Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Sergio Catalan Alarcon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation

of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the

petition for review.

      *
            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).
      We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination

that petitioner failed to establish good moral character during the requisite

period of time. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct.

1614, 1622-23 (2022) (where the agency denies a form of relief listed in

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal courts have jurisdiction to review

constitutional claims and questions of law, but not factual findings and

discretionary decisions). The petition does not raise a colorable legal or

constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

                                         2                                      21-1109