Court Opinion

ID: 9374329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:49.502125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:50.834703
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS SILVA-PLASCENCIA,                         No.    18-73249

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-150-541

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 17, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Jesus Silva-Plascencia (“Silva-Plascencia”), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

affirming the denial by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of Silva-Plascencia’s

applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We deny the

      *
             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).
petition in part and dismiss in part.

      Our jurisdiction over challenges to the discretionary decision to deny

cancellation of removal or voluntary departure is limited to colorable legal or

constitutional claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Patel v. Garland, 142

S. Ct. 1614, 1622–23 (2022). To the extent Silva-Plascencia argues that the BIA

violated his right to due process by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision, that

constitutional claim is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845,

851 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that it is not “a due process violation for the BIA to

affirm the IJ’s decision [denying cancellation of removal] without issuing an

opinion”). We deny the petition as to that claim.

      The petition does not otherwise raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim

and thus we lack jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930

(9th Cir. 2005).

      PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

                                          2