Luis Angel Ceballos-Loera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ANGEL CEBALLOS-LOERA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70507
Agency No. A206-105-388
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 7, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Angel Ceballos-Loera, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for cancellation of removal and, in the
* 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
FEB 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
alternative, voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and
we deny the petition for review.1
We review questions of law de novo. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042
(9th Cir. 2016). Although we generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s
discretionary determinations, see Posos-Sanchez v. Garland, 3 F.4th 1176, 1182 n.3
(9th Cir. 2021), we retain jurisdiction to consider colorable constitutional challenges
and questions of law raised in a petition for review of a discretionary decision, 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Ceballos-Loera’s contention that the agency applied the incorrect legal
standard regarding its voluntary departure analysis lacks support in the record. First,
Ceballos-Loera asks the court to review the IJ’s underlying discretionary analysis.
We decline to do so. Where, as here, “the BIA conducts its own review of the
evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the
BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.”
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
1 The BIA denied Ceballos-Loera’s application for cancellation of removal on two
grounds. First, because he failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to his two children should he be removed to Mexico; and second, because
his circumstances did not warrant a favorable exercise of agency discretion.
Ceballos-Loera has forfeited any review of his cancellation of removal claim
because he failed to raise the issue in his opening brief. Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland,
12 F.4th 942, 959 (9th Cir. 2021).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Second, the BIA properly considered all equities in denying Ceballos-Loera’s
petition for voluntary departure. In exercising discretion to grant or deny requests
for voluntary departure, the agency must “weigh favorable and unfavorable factors
by evaluating all of them, assigning weight or importance to each one separately and
then to all of them cumulatively.” Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1221 (9th
Cir. 2021) (quoting Campos-Granillo v. INS, 12 F.3d 849, 852 (9th Cir. 1993)). The
BIA positively noted Ceballos-Loera’s length of residence, sustained employment,
positive support of his family, generally consistent payment of income taxes,
purchase of and equity in his family home, and other family ties in the United States.
The BIA negatively noted his 2007 DUI, failure to attend the related court hearing,
and resulting warrant for his arrest. The BIA also negatively discussed Ceballos-
Loera’s failure to file tax returns for a four-year period and his use of a false social
security number to obtain work. After balancing these equities, the BIA denied
discretionary relief. No more is required from the agency. See Zamorano, 2 F.4th
at 1221.
Finally, the BIA’s correct voluntary departure analysis renders any error from
the IJ’s underlying determination harmless. See id. at 1228 (harmless error
principles apply to immigration agency review).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --