Court Opinion

ID: 9882156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 16:01:10.915665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:53.230641
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 5 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR TELLES SAAVEDRA,                         No. 21-891
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A216-554-222
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 3, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Hector Telles Saavedra, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from

a decision by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying cancellation of removal and

      *
             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).
voluntary departure.

      Because Telles Saavedra challenges the denial of his application for

cancellation of removal, our jurisdiction is limited to “review of constitutional

claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also id.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1623–27 (2022). Telles

Saavedra argues that the immigration court proceedings violated his due process

rights because he did not understand the nature of the proceedings and the IJ failed

to properly develop the record.

      To establish a due process violation, Telles Saavedra must show that “the

proceeding was ‘so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably

presenting his case’” and “prejudice, which means that the outcome of the

proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Colmenar v. INS,

210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Platero-Cortez v. INS, 804 F.2d 1127,

1132 (9th Cir. 1986)).

      Here, the IJ aided Telles Saavedra in filling out the application for

cancellation of removal and asked Telles Saavedra if he had any additional

evidence. The IJ did not prevent Telles Saavedra from reasonably presenting his

case. Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971–72. Nor has Telles Saavedra argued that he was

prejudiced.

                                         2                                    21-891
      Telles Saavedra thus raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim related

to the denial of his application for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure,

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Because our

review is limited to constitutional issues and questions of law, our analysis ends

there. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D).

PETITION DENIED.

                                        3                                    21-891