JOSE MORALES ZAVALETA, AKA Gildardo Morales, AKA Jose Gildar Morales-Zavalet, AKA… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MORALES ZAVALETA, AKA
Gildardo Morales, AKA Jose Gildar
Morales-Zavalet, AKA Jose G.
Moraleszavelta, AKA Tomas Olivares,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72447
Agency No. A205-719-277
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Jose Morales Zavaleta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for cancellation of removal
* 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).
FILED
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72447
and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Khan v. Holder, 584
F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Morales Zavaleta failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives, and Morales Zavaleta’s hardship contentions are not colorable
claims that invoke our jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644
(9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks
jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding
hardship); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be
colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Morales Zavaleta’s request for a continuance where he did not demonstrate good
cause. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider); Singh v. Holder,
638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a
continuance based on . . . speculations.”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72447
We reject as unsupported Morales Zavaleta’s contention that the IJ’s
conduct violated his due process rights and deprived him of a full and fair hearing.
See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner “had
ample opportunity to present his case, and the record as a whole does not suggest
that the IJ did not conduct the hearing with an open mind”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure, and Morales Zavaleta’s related due process contention is not a colorable
claim that invokes our jurisdiction. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174,
1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial of
voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law);
Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930.
We reject Morales Zavaleta’s contention that remand is warranted under
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d
1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and
date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).
The government’s motion (Docket Entry No. 25) to strike Morales
Zavaleta’s September 12, 2018, filing (Docket Entry No. 24) is granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --