Guillermo Gaspar Salgado v. Merrick Garland

Ninth Circuit

Guillermo Gaspar Salgado v. Merrick Garland

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 2022

Docket21-70691

StatusUnpublished

This text of Guillermo Gaspar Salgado v. Merrick Garland (Guillermo Gaspar Salgado v. Merrick Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guillermo Gaspar Salgado v. Merrick Garland, (9th Cir. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO GASPAR SALGADO, No. 21-70691

Petitioner, Agency No. A075-674-576

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.

Guillermo Gaspar Salgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order sustaining the Department of

Homeland Security’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting

his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by

* 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny

Gaspar Salgado’s application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Szonyi v. Barr, 942 F.3d 874, 896 (9th Cir. 2019)

(“This court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of a discretionary decision to

deny cancellation of removal . . . .”). The petition does not raise a colorable legal

or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005);

see also Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In a

deportation hearing there is no prohibition against drawing an adverse inference

when a petitioner invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.”

(citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2 21-70691

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI