Jaime Roques-Juarez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME ROQUES-JUAREZ, No. 18-72722
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-784-500
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Roques-Juarez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 2008). We
*
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).
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Roques-Juarez did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in
his application for cancellation of removal, and Roques-Juarez does not raise a
colorable question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.
2003) (“[A]n ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination is a
subjective, discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate
jurisdiction.”). Because the hardship determination is dispositive, we do not reach
Roques-Juarez’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).
Roques-Juarez’s contentions that the IJ improperly denied voluntary
departure and failed to inform him of his apparent eligibility for this relief are not
supported because the record shows that he did not apply for voluntary departure.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 18-72722