Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Eduardo RODRIGUEZ-MENDIOLA, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Eduardo Rodriguez-Mendiola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order declining to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
The BIA denied cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion and this court lacks jurisdiction to review such discretionary decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the court's lack of jurisdiction to review a discretionary cancellation of removal determination and the related exception that the court retains jurisdiction to review “purely legal” questions).
In his opening brief, Rodriguez-Mendiola does not raise any challenge to the BIA's decision not to remand his removal proceedings to the IJ. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Mendiola's contention that the IJ violated his right to due process. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring exhaustion of procedural errors that could be corrected by the BIA).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
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.
Docket No: No. 19-72237
Decided: July 21, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)