MANUEL ARREOLA-SOSA, Ignacio Arreola-Sosa v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL ARREOLA-SOSA, Ignacio
Arreola-Sosa,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70009
Agency No. A201-290-074
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Arreola-Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* 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
DEC 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70009
review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Arreola-
Sosa did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622-23 (2022) (where the
BIA 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 Arreola-Sosa’s remaining contentions regarding whether his convictions
are disqualifying offenses for purposes of cancellation of removal. 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). Thus, we dismiss the
petition for review as to Arreola-Sosa’s cancellation of removal claim.
To the extent Arreola-Sosa contends that the IJ violated due process in
failing to advise him of apparent eligibility for relief, he has not shown error. See
Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner
must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”); see also Zamorano v.
Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1223 (9th Cir. 2021) (IJ did not have a duty to advise

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-70009
noncitizen of apparent eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal where he
did not express a fear of persecution that could support a plausible claim for relief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --