Pedro Ramirez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO CLAVEL RAMIREZ, No. 16-72137
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-139-504
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Clavel Ramirez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to terminate and denying
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v.
*
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).
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for abuse of discretion
the denial of a motion to subpoena a witness. Kaur v. INS, 237 F.3d 1098, 1099
(9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying Clavel Ramirez’s motion to terminate
removal proceedings, where he has not shown the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was
insufficient to vest jurisdiction with the immigration court. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229(a)(1)(A-D); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15; Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1067-
68 (9th Cir. 2007) (the issuing officer’s illegible name and title on the NTA do not
deprive the agency of jurisdiction, if the NTA informs petitioner of the nature of
the proceedings against him, the legal authority under which the proceedings are
conducted, the acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of law, and the statutory
provisions alleged to have been violated). The record does not support Clavel
Ramirez’s contention that the BIA ignored his arguments regarding the
immigration court’s jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Clavel
Ramirez’s motion for a subpoena to cross-examine the officer who prepared the
NTA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.35(b)(3) (an IJ may issue a subpoena if the party
applying for a subpoena establishes that the “witness’s evidence is essential”); see
also Kaur, 237 F.3d at 1100-01.
2 16-72137
We do not reach Clavel Ramirez’s contention that the BIA engaged in
impermissible fact-finding when it described the omission as “inadvertent.” See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to reach non-dispositive issues).
To the extent Clavel Ramirez is also asserting a regulatory violation, he has
not shown prejudice. See Kohli, 473 F.3d at 1067 (prejudice required for a
regulatory violation to render removal unlawful).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Clavel Ramirez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of
law and constitutional claims, Clavel Ramirez has raised no such claim, where the
record does not support his contention that the BIA failed to address evidence or
argument relating to his health problems. See id.; Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention);
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
We deny as moot Clavel Ramirez’s remand request, where El Salvador is no
longer designated for temporary protective status.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-72137