Court Opinion

ID: 9396446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 17:01:46.539591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.053774
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

SANTOS MONZON REYES, AKA Santos                 No.    21-70749
Monzoreyes, AKA Santos Roman
Monzoreyes, AKA Carlos Reyes,                   Agency No. A206-410-360

                Petitioner,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Santos Monzon Reyes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to remand removal proceedings and dismissing his appeal from an

      *
             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).
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095,

1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      Monzon Reyes’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his

proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187,

1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to

appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8

C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).

      We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to deny Monzon Reyes’s

application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also

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 BIA did not err in declining to consider Monzon Reyes’s arguments

regarding asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”) that were raised for the first time to the BIA. See

                                          2                                     21-70749
Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (BIA did not err in

declining to consider argument raised for the first time on appeal); Matter of W-Y-

C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 190-91 (BIA 2018) (where the IJ did not have

an opportunity to make relevant factual findings, the BIA cannot do so in the first

instance on appeal).

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to remand Monzon Reyes’s

removal proceedings where he failed to submit an appropriate application for

relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d

1057, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2008) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen,

in part, because motion was not accompanied by an application for the relief

sought). To the extent Monzon Reyes raises them, we need not reach his

remaining contentions that he demonstrated prima facie eligibility for asylum and

related relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

reach).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                         3                                     21-70749