Armando Gastelum-Duarte v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO GASTELUM-DUARTE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-301
Agency No.
A209-138-906
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Armando Gastelum-Duarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation
of removal and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
* 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 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-301
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622-23 (2022) (where
the agency denies a form of relief listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal
courts have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, but
not factual findings and discretionary decisions).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Gastelum-Duarte’s
remaining contentions regarding the agency’s hardship determination. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies
are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --