NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS OMAR CARDENAS PARRA, No. 22-319
Petitioner, Agency No. A213-082-569
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 08, 2023 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,***
District Judge.
Carlos Omar Cardenas Parra petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order upholding an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Cardenas Parra
*
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).
***
The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge
for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
argues only that the IJ—and the BIA by agreeing with the IJ’s decision—
violated his due process rights by failing to consider all relevant evidence in
denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction over such constitutional
questions, but only if the claim is not insubstantial or frivolous. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979–80 (9th Cir.
2009).
The due process claim is frivolous. The IJ explicitly mentioned the
evidence that Cardenas Parra claims the IJ failed to consider: the ages of his
United States citizen children, his regular weekend visits to see his children and
provision of emotional and financial support to them, and his children’s
mother’s lack of lawful immigration status. The IJ then stated that he “weighed
all the evidence of the record, both individually and cumulatively on the issue of
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” The IJ’s statements about
Cardenas Parra “bypass[ing] the line” do not show that the IJ ignored any
evidence relevant to the hardship determination. We therefore lack
jurisdiction. 1
PETITION DISMISSED.
1
Cardenas Parra does not challenge the merits of the BIA’s determination that
he failed to establish the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 978. Thus, we have no
occasion to address the applicability of De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland, 49
F.4th 1282, 1290–91 (9th Cir. 2022) (suggesting that the hardship determination
for cancellation of removal may be a mixed question of law and fact subject to
judicial review).
2