Fernando Ramirez Ruiz v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO RAMIREZ RUIZ, No. 19-72117
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-121-608
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Ramirez Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
*
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).
law, including claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Ramirez Ruiz failed to establish the
IJ violated his right to due process by exhibiting bias. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see
also Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007)
(concluding no due process violation where the noncitizen failed to show that “the
IJ had a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible”).
We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary
determination that Ramirez Ruiz did not show exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to his qualifying relatives for purposes of cancellation of removal where
the petition does not further raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over
which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Martinez-
Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Ramirez Ruiz’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 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of a legal
standard to undisputed facts is a legal question under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D));
see also Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (Ramadan
2 19-72117
does not apply to the subjective hardship standard).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-72117