Gregorio Portilla Juarez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORIO PORTILLA JUAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71903
Agency No. A205-527-967
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gregorio Portilla Juarez, 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 denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
FEB 22 2017
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 3 --

questions of law and claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err by denying Portilla Juarez’s application for cancellation
of removal, where he lacked any qualifying relatives at the time of his final
removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(D) (an applicant for cancellation of
removal must establish the requisite hardship to a “spouse, parent or child”),
1101(b)(1) (“The term ‘child’ means an unmarried person under twenty-one years
of age . . . .”). Portilla Juarez’s contentions that the agency erred in relying on
Matter of Isidro-Zamorano, 25 I. & N. Dec. 829, 829 (BIA 2012), in determining
his daughter was not a qualifying relative and should have applied the dictionary
definition of child are foreclosed by our decision in Mendez-Garcia v. Lynch, 840
F.3d 655, 663-65 (9th Cir. 2016) (deferring to the BIA’s conclusion in Matter of
Isidro-Zamorano that an applicant for cancellation of removal must show hardship
to qualifying relative at the time the IJ adjudicates the application, and rejecting
petitioner’s argument that agency should have used dictionary definition); Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). We are not persuaded by Portilla
Juarez’s contention that Matter of Isidro-Zamorano is distinguishable.
Portilla Juarez’s contentions that his due process rights were violated
because he had an alleged settled expectation that he could receive cancellation of
15-71903 2

-- 2 of 3 --

removal, or because the agency did not adjudicate his application for relief before
his daughter turned twenty-one are also foreclosed by Mendez-Garcia, 840 F.3d at
665-69.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
15-71903 3

-- 3 of 3 --