Court Opinion

ID: 9407889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 18:01:00.742665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.996479
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO REGALADO ZAVALA,                   Nos. 16-73794
                                                     17-71776
                Petitioner,
                                                Agency No. A041-861-417
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
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.

      In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Antonio Regalado Zavala, a

native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying

his application for cancellation of removal (petition No. 16-73794), and the BIA’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).
order denying his motion to reopen (petition No. 17-71776). Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a

motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). In petition

16-73794, we dismiss the petition for review. In petition 17-71776, we deny the

petition for review.

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

cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); 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). Regalado Zavala’s challenge to the agency’s adverse

credibility determination does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim

over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Thus, we dismiss

petition 16-73794.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to

reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where petitioner failed to show

prejudice from the performance of former counsel. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,

339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner failed to establish prejudice where he

presented no plausible grounds for relief). Regalado Zavala’s contention that he is

eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on an imputed political

                                          2                                    16-73794
opinion is not properly before the court because he failed to raise it before the BIA.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see

also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023) (section

1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule). Thus, we deny petition

17-71776.

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

      NO. 16-73794: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

      NO. 17-71776: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                    16-73794