NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN VASQUEZ-LEON, No. 19-70796
Petitioner, Agency No. A090-975-272
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Martin Vasquez-Leon, 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 denying cancellation of removal, adjustment of
status, and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2019). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denials of
cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and voluntary departure, and
Vasquez-Leon does not raise a colorable question of law that would invoke our
jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (barring judicial review of discretionary
denials of relief); Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016)
(disagreement with weighing of equities is not colorable question of law).
Vasquez-Leon’s assertion that his written pleadings were omitted from the
administrative record is not supported, and Vasquez-Leon failed to exhaust his
claim that his pleadings were to the original, not amended, notice to appear. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA was not required to remand to correct the IJ’s misstatement about
the date on the notice to appear. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (BIA may take
notice of content of official documents); see also Arrey, 916 F.3d at 1159 (BIA
cured IJ error by not relying on it).
Vasquez-Leon’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his
proceedings is foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th
Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not include time and date of hearing to vest
jurisdiction in the immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 19-70796