Court Opinion

ID: 9407429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 22:00:54.311788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.302501
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

ROBERTO CARLOS SERNA                            No. 21-17
ALEJANDRO,                                      Agency No.
                                                A200-155-745
             Petitioner,

 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.

      Roberto Carlos Serna Alejandro, a native and citizen of Ecuador,

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

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his application for

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

review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

      *
            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).
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

      Serna Alejandro’s due process claim fails because the record does not

support his contentions that the IJ engaged in improper speculation and failed to

consider evidence. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.

2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a

violation of rights and prejudice.”).

      We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of

cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion where Serna Alejandro’s

remaining challenges do not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); 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).

      We do not consider the materials Serna Alejandro references in his

opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS,

79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                        2                                       21-17