Lira Roldan v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 21, 2025
• Docket: 23-89
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO LIRA ROLDAN, No. 23-89 Agency No. Petitioner, A088-673-262 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Lira Roldan, a citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal and voluntary

departure. “Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the

* 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). immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753

F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted). We deny the petition.

Per 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2), we do not have jurisdiction over removal orders

denying cancellation of removal or removal orders denying voluntary

departure. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 218 (2024). However, per

§ 1252(a)(2)(D), we have jurisdiction over “constitutional claims or questions of

law.” Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 218.

Cancellation of removal requires a petitioner to show “that removal would

result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Here, in addition to finding Roldan did not meet this

bar, the IJ denied relief as a matter of discretion, which we cannot review.

Similarly, “we lack jurisdiction to reweigh the agency’s exercise of

discretion in denying voluntary departure.” Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213,

1221 (9th Cir. 2021). Here, the IJ denied voluntary departure based on discretion,

which we cannot review.

The agency’s decision to deny the request for continuance relates to the IJ’s

judgment regarding cancellation of removal, so we only have jurisdiction to review

constitutional claims or questions of law. Id.; see also Figueroa Ochoa v.

Garland, 91 F.4th 1289, 1293–94 (9th Cir.) (2024), cert. denied sub nom. Ochoa v.

Garland, 145 S. Ct. 137 (2024). Reviewing de novo Roldan’s due process

2 23-89 challenge, Roldan was not denied the opportunity for a full and fair hearing as his

wife testified regarding her heart condition despite refusal of a continuance. Cf.

Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding a respondent

was denied a full and fair hearing where her request for a continuance to obtain a

psychological evaluation for her child was denied and she was precluded from

giving full testimony on her child’s condition).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 23-89