BENJAMIN IBARRA LIRA, AKA Benjamin I. Lira, AKA Benjamin Ibarra, AKA Benjamin Ibarra… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN IBARRA LIRA, AKA
Benjamin I. Lira, AKA Benjamin Ibarra,
AKA Benjamin Ibarra Lira,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72416
Agency No. A074-215-404
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Ibarra Lira, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of
* 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
AUG 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72416
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in determining that Ibarra Lira failed to establish that
his conviction under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11350(a) is not
a controlled substance violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Lazo v. Wilkinson,
989 F.3d 705, 714 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that CHSC § 11350 is divisible as to
controlled substance and relying on the charging document and guilty-plea
colloquy to conclude the conviction was for possession of cocaine and thus a
violation of a law “relating to a controlled substance”). Thus, Ibarra Lira’s
cancellation of removal claim fails.
As to Ibarra Lira’s contention that the IJ erred or violated due process by not
granting a continuance, the BIA did not err in concluding the argument is without
merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim). To the extent Ibarra Lira raises, in his opening
brief, a separate argument that the IJ did not allow him an opportunity to present
evidence, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contention. See Agyeman v. INS, 296
F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process claims based on correctable procedural

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72416
errors may not be entertained unless they were raised below).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --