Carlos Canchola-Juarez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS CANCHOLA-JUAREZ, No. 19-72717
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-784-664
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Canchola-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying a motion to remand
and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand.
Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We dismiss in part and deny
in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Canchola-Juarez’s challenges to the BIA’s
denial of cancellation of removal where the IJ denied relief as a matter of
discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Lopez-Castellanos v.
Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006) (the court lacks jurisdiction to review
the agency’s discretionary good moral character determination). Although the
court retains jurisdiction over questions of law and constitutional claims,
Canchola-Juarez’s contentions do not amount to colorable claims that would
invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Lopez-Castellanos, 437
F.3d at 854.1 Canchola-Juarez waived his challenge to the agency’s consideration
of evidence before the ten-year period for good moral character because he raised
it for the first time in his reply brief. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th
Cir. 2020) (petitioner waived a claim first challenged in the reply brief).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Canchola-Juarez’s motion to
remand for failure to show how the newly submitted evidence would have changed
the result in the case. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008)
1
Canchola-Juarez’s reliance on Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.
Ct. 1062 (2020), is misplaced. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650, 656
(9th Cir. 2007).
2 19-72717
(applicants “who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a
‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence
would likely change the result in the case” (internal citation omitted)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 19-72717