Hector Telles Saavedra v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR TELLES SAAVEDRA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-891
Agency No.
A216-554-222
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 3, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Hector Telles Saavedra, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from
a decision by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying cancellation of removal and
* 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
OCT 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-891
voluntary departure.
Because Telles Saavedra challenges the denial of his application for
cancellation of removal, our jurisdiction is limited to “review of constitutional
claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also id.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1623–27 (2022). Telles
Saavedra argues that the immigration court proceedings violated his due process
rights because he did not understand the nature of the proceedings and the IJ failed
to properly develop the record.
To establish a due process violation, Telles Saavedra must show that “the
proceeding was ‘so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably
presenting his case’” and “prejudice, which means that the outcome of the
proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Colmenar v. INS,
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Platero-Cortez v. INS, 804 F.2d 1127,
1132 (9th Cir. 1986)).
Here, the IJ aided Telles Saavedra in filling out the application for
cancellation of removal and asked Telles Saavedra if he had any additional
evidence. The IJ did not prevent Telles Saavedra from reasonably presenting his
case. Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971–72. Nor has Telles Saavedra argued that he was
prejudiced.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-891
Telles Saavedra thus raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim related
to the denial of his application for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure,
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Because our
review is limited to constitutional issues and questions of law, our analysis ends
there. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --