NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERVANDO ALONSO FLORES, AKA No. 20-70788
Roberto G. Trujillo,
Agency No. A048-137-953
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Servando Alonso Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying his application for cancellation of removal and his motion for a
*
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).
continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754
F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
continuance. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Alonso Flores contends that the IJ failed to consider multiple factors relevant
to cancellation of removal, but his contention fails as unsupported by the record,
and we otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to
deny cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Szonyi v.
Barr, 942 F.3d 874, 896 (9th Cir. 2019) (“This court lacks jurisdiction to review
the merits of a discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal, but it does
have jurisdiction to review whether the IJ considered relevant evidence in making
this decision.”). Thus, Alonso Flores’s cancellation of removal claim fails.
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the
evidence Alonso Flores submitted with his motion to remand would not alter the
prior discretionary determination denying cancellation of removal. See Fernandez
v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) . . . bars
jurisdiction where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue
originally decided.”). We reject Alonso Flores’s contention that the BIA failed to
consider his motion to remand as unsupported by the record.
2 20-70788
The agency did not abuse its discretion in granting a shorter continuance
than that requested by Alonso Flores. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a
continuance for good cause shown); Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th
Cir. 2009) (setting out the factors to consider in good cause analysis). Thus,
Alonso Flores’s contention that the agency violated his right to due process fails.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim).
We do not consider the materials Alonso Flores submitted to the court that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 20-70788