Francisco Salgado-Vasquez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO SALGADO-VASQUEZ, No. 20-70517
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-132-417
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Salgado-Vasquez, 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 motion to terminate proceedings
and his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Salgado-Vasquez’s motion
to terminate because he failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alteration to
his notice to appear (“NTA”). See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068-70 (9th
Cir. 2007) (petitioner was required to show prejudice to succeed on motion to
terminate based on a defective NTA). We reject as unsupported by the record
Salgado-Vasquez’s contentions that the NTA contained a forged certificate of
service.
Salgado-Vasquez’s contentions that the IJ violated his right to due process
by determining that he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime without a
hearing fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); see also Dent v. Sessions, 900
F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 2018) (to show prejudice, petitioner must show the
outcome of proceedings may have been affected by the alleged due process
violation). Thus, Salgado-Vasquez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of
removal because Salgado-Vasquez raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim.
2 20-70517
See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005) (court’s
jurisdiction to review challenges to the IJ’s discretionary determination is limited
to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law).
The record does not support Salgado-Vasquez’s contentions that the BIA or
IJ failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claims. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he BIA does not
have to write an exegesis on every contention.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the
record).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 6) is
otherwise denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 20-70517