Jesus Silva-Plascencia v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS SILVA-PLASCENCIA, No. 18-73249
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-150-541
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Silva-Plascencia (“Silva-Plascencia”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirming the denial by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of Silva-Plascencia’s
applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We deny the
*
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).
petition in part and dismiss in part.
Our jurisdiction over challenges to the discretionary decision to deny
cancellation of removal or voluntary departure is limited to colorable legal or
constitutional claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Patel v. Garland, 142
S. Ct. 1614, 1622–23 (2022). To the extent Silva-Plascencia argues that the BIA
violated his right to due process by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision, that
constitutional claim is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845,
851 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that it is not “a due process violation for the BIA to
affirm the IJ’s decision [denying cancellation of removal] without issuing an
opinion”). We deny the petition as to that claim.
The petition does not otherwise raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim
and thus we lack jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930
(9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
2