Juvenal TABOADA-BAHENA, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: November 20, 2019
Before: GRABER, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
We lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), 1229b, 1229c. We do have jurisdiction to review “colorable” legal and constitutional claims, which we review de novo. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Here, Taboada-Bahena incorrectly argues that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board did not deny his requested relief as an exercise of discretion. To the extent that Taboada-Bahena raises due process challenges to the admission of the I-213's and his inability to cross-examine the preparers of those forms, his arguments fail. He raised no objection to the forms when they were admitted by the IJ, and he has not overcome the presumption that the forms were reliable. Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995).
As there are no cognizable legal or constitutional claims, we lack jurisdiction over the discretionary denial of relief, which is independently dispositive. We therefore do not reach the question whether Taboada-Bahena was disqualified.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.