Eduardo Rodriguez-Mendiola v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ-MENDIOLA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72237
Agency No. A213-018-688
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Rodriguez-Mendiola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order declining to remand
and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
* 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
JUL 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-72237
§ 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
The BIA denied cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion and this
court lacks jurisdiction to review such discretionary decisions. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th
Cir. 2003) (discussing the court’s lack of jurisdiction to review a discretionary
cancellation of removal determination and the related exception that the court
retains jurisdiction to review “purely legal” questions).
In his opening brief, Rodriguez-Mendiola does not raise any challenge to the
BIA’s decision not to remand his removal proceedings to the IJ. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Mendiola’s contention that the IJ
violated his right to due process. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004) (requiring exhaustion of procedural errors that could be corrected
by the BIA).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --