Felipe Estevez-Juarez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIPE DANIEL ESTEVEZ-JUAREZ, No. 19-71838
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-312-883
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Felipe Daniel Estevez-Juarez, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch,
*
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).
840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We review de novo 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 abuse its discretion in denying Estevez-Juarez’s motion to
reopen to apply for cancellation of removal, where Estevez-Juarez failed to
demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Garcia v. Holder, 621
F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (providing that a motion to reopen will not be
granted absent a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief based on
demonstrating “a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief
have been satisfied” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also
Partap v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (no abuse of
discretion in denying motion to remand to apply for cancellation of removal where
petitioner “did not tender any evidence showing exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the contentions Estevez-Juarez raises in his
opening brief as to his second United States citizen child because he did not raise
them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
2 19-71838
Estevez-Juarez’s contentions that the BIA violated his right to due process
fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-71838