JOSE JUAN MARTINEZ-SALAS, AKA Juan Martinez-Salas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JUAN MARTINEZ-SALAS, AKA
Juan Martinez-Salas,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70741
Agency No. A206-236-804
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, and Circuit Judges.
Jose Juan Martinez-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
terminate and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
* 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
JAN 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70741
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial
of a motion to terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in its analysis or conclusion that Martinez-Salas’s
contention that the IJ failed to consider his children’s right to family unity under
the Fourteenth Amendment is without merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also De
Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (denial of an
application for cancellation of removal does not implicate constitutional rights
regarding family unity). We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s
discretionary determination that Martinez-Salas did not show exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of
removal, where Martinez-Salas’s remaining challenges to the determination do not
raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,
930 (9th Cir. 2005).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Salas’s motion to
terminate where his challenge to the immigration court’s jurisdiction is foreclosed

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70741
by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1159 (9th Cir. 2019), because he
received a notice of hearing that included the time and date of the hearing.
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 --