Telles Saavedra v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 5, 2023
• Docket: 21-891
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR TELLES SAAVEDRA, No. 21-891 Agency No. Petitioner, A216-554-222 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 3, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Hector Telles Saavedra, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a

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

a decision by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying cancellation of removal 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). voluntary departure.

Because Telles Saavedra challenges the denial of his application for

cancellation of removal, our jurisdiction is limited to “review of constitutional

claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also id.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1623–27 (2022). Telles

Saavedra argues that the immigration court proceedings violated his due process

rights because he did not understand the nature of the proceedings and the IJ failed

to properly develop the record.

To establish a due process violation, Telles Saavedra must show that “the

proceeding was ‘so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably

presenting his case’” and “prejudice, which means that the outcome of the

proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Colmenar v. INS,

210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Platero-Cortez v. INS, 804 F.2d 1127,

1132 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, the IJ aided Telles Saavedra in filling out the application for

cancellation of removal and asked Telles Saavedra if he had any additional

evidence. The IJ did not prevent Telles Saavedra from reasonably presenting his

case. Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971–72. Nor has Telles Saavedra argued that he was

prejudiced.

2 21-891 Telles Saavedra thus raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim related

to the denial of his application for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure,

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Because our

review is limited to constitutional issues and questions of law, our analysis ends

there. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D).

PETITION DENIED.

3 21-891