Perez Torres v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 16, 2024
• Docket: 23-122
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOISES ELIAS PEREZ TORRES, No. 23-122 Agency No. Petitioner, A070-289-956 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted September 12, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Moises Elias Perez Torres, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying his motion to remand

to seek cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review that decision and

* 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). therefore dismiss the petition.

We are barred from reviewing “‘any judgment regarding the granting of

relief under’ the provisions governing cancellation of removal . . . except in

reviewing constitutional claims and legal questions.” Figueroa Ochoa v. Garland,

91 F.4th 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)). That

jurisdictional bar extends to rulings on procedural motions relating to an alien’s

eligibility for discretionary relief. Id. at 1293–94.

Perez Torres applied for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge

denied his application on several grounds, including that he lacked a qualifying

relative for such relief. On appeal, Perez Torres filed a motion to remand, arguing

that he, in fact, has a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal

and, for the first time, presenting evidence of that relative. In dismissing his appeal,

the Board denied the motion to remand because Perez Torres presented his

arguments “for the first time on appeal,” as well as for the “independent reason”

that he had “not carried his heavy burden to show that he has a qualifying relative.”

See Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 516, 526 (B.I.A. 2015).

Because the agency denied Perez Torres’s motion to remand based on its

determination that he failed to establish that he has a qualifying relative, it made a

judgment grounded in factual findings that we lack jurisdiction to review. See

Figueroa Ochoa, 91 F.4th at 1293–94; see also Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328,

2 23-122 347 (2022). And although Perez Torres argues that the Board erred in applying the

standard for a motion to reopen when assessing his motion to remand, we have

held that the requirements for both types of motions are essentially the same. See

Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, because Perez Torres

raises no colorable constitutional or legal challenge to the agency’s decision, the

exceptions to the preclusion of jurisdiction do not apply.

PETITION DISMISSED.

3 23-122