Zendejas Vazquez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-5366
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER ZENDEJAS VAZQUEZ, No. 24-5366 Agency No. Petitioner, A059-928-779 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Javier Zendejas Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

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

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal and deeming waived his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

* 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). and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Zendejas Vazquez’s application

for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 596

U.S. 328, 338-40 (2022) (when the agency denies a form of relief listed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal courts have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims

and questions of law, but not factual findings or discretionary decisions). The

petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim the court can

review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,

930 (9th Cir. 2005).

To the extent Zendejas Vazquez challenges the BIA’s determination that

remand to reapply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection was

not warranted, the BIA did not abuse its discretion where Zendejas Vazquez did

not show changed country conditions in Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);

Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (movant must produce

material evidence that conditions in country of nationality had changed).

To the extent Zendejas Vazquez claims the agency violated due process by

overlooking evidence of past and future harm, his claims fail because he has not

shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014)

2 24-5366 (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation

of rights and prejudice.”).

The request (Docket Entry No. 22) for an expedited ruling on the motion to

stay removal is granted. The motion to stay removal is denied. The temporary stay

of removal is lifted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3 24-5366