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.
Benjamin IBARRA LIRA, aka Benjamin I. Lira, aka Benjamin Ibarra, aka Benjamin Ibarra Lira, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Benjamin Ibarra Lira, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in determining that Ibarra Lira failed to establish that his conviction under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11350(a) is not a controlled substance violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Lazo v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 705, 714 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that CHSC § 11350 is divisible as to controlled substance and relying on the charging document and guilty-plea colloquy to conclude the conviction was for possession of cocaine and thus a violation of a law “relating to a controlled substance”). Thus, Ibarra Lira's cancellation of removal claim fails.
As to Ibarra Lira's contention that the IJ erred or violated due process by not granting a continuance, the BIA did not err in concluding the argument is without merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). To the extent Ibarra Lira raises, in his opening brief, a separate argument that the IJ did not allow him an opportunity to present evidence, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contention. See Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process claims based on correctable procedural errors may not be entertained unless they were raised below).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED 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. 15-72416
Decided: August 20, 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)