ALONSO FLORES v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-22No. No. 20-70788

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and the Board's determination regarding the remand motion, and the agency did not abuse its discretion in granting a shorter continuance than requested.

Servando Alonso Flores, a Mexican citizen, sought court review of immigration proceedings in which an immigration judge denied his application for cancellation of removal and granted a shorter continuance than he requested. The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently denied his motion to remand. Flores argued that the immigration judge failed to consider relevant factors for cancellation of removal and that the shorter continuance violated his due process rights. The court found that Flores's claims either lacked record support or presented discretionary agency decisions beyond the court's jurisdiction to review on the merits. The court also declined to consider materials Flores submitted that were not part of the administrative record.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the immigration judge failed to consider factors relevant to cancellation of removal
Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals properly considered the motion to remand
Whether the grant of a shorter continuance constituted abuse of discretion or due process violation

Procedural posture

Flores petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying cancellation of removal and the motion for continuance.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Servando Alonso Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and his motion for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Alonso Flores contends that the IJ failed to consider multiple factors relevant to cancellation of removal, but his contention fails as unsupported by the record, and we otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agencys discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Szonyi v. Barr, 942 F.3d 874, 896 (9th Cir. 2019) (“This court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of a discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal, but it does have jurisdiction to review whether the IJ considered relevant evidence in making this decision.”). Thus, Alonso Floress cancellation of removal claim fails.

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIAs determination that the evidence Alonso Flores submitted with his motion to remand would not alter the prior discretionary determination denying cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ․ bars jurisdiction where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided.”). We reject Alonso Floress contention that the BIA failed to consider his motion to remand as unsupported by the record.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in granting a shorter continuance than that requested by Alonso Flores. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting out the factors to consider in good cause analysis). Thus, Alonso Floress contention that the agency violated his right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

We do not consider the materials Alonso Flores submitted to the court that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.