GUILLERMO HIJAR ORTA, AKA Guillermo Higar, AKA Juan Chavez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO HIJAR ORTA, AKA
Guillermo Higar, AKA Juan Chavez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70325
Agency No. A095-752-399
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Hijar Orta, 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.
* 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 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70325
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal as
a matter of discretion. 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). The petition does not raise a colorable legal or
constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D). We do not address Orta’s hardship contentions because the BIA
did not deny relief on this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d
820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
Thus, we dismiss the petition for review as to Orta’s cancellation of removal claim.
We do not consider the materials Orta references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --