Juvenal Taboada-Bahena v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUVENAL TABOADA-BAHENA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70490
Agency No. A200-198-476
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 12, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
We lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of cancellation of
removal and voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), 1229b, 1229c. We
do have jurisdiction to review “colorable” legal and constitutional claims, which
FILED
NOV 20 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

we review de novo. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Here, Taboada-Bahena incorrectly argues that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
and the Board did not deny his requested relief as an exercise of discretion. To the
extent that Taboada-Bahena raises due process challenges to the admission of the I-
213's and his inability to cross-examine the preparers of those forms, his arguments
fail. He raised no objection to the forms when they were admitted by the IJ, and he
has not overcome the presumption that the forms were reliable. Espinoza v. INS,
45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995).
As there are no cognizable legal or constitutional claims, we lack
jurisdiction over the discretionary denial of relief, which is independently
dispositive. We therefore do not reach the question whether Taboada-Bahena was
disqualified.
DISMISSED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --