Juan Martinez v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JOSE MARTINEZ, No. 13-71456
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-737-543
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jose Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
*
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).
Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying Martinez’s application for cancellation of
removal, where Martinez failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his
convictions do not render him ineligible for relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B),
(C); see also Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 760 (2021) (applicant bears the
burden of establishing eligibility for discretionary relief, including that he has not
been convicted of certain disqualifying offenses).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Martinez’s contentions regarding
the remaining factors for eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the agency are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71456