Jose Guadalupe Perez-Gonzalez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73180
Agency No. A205-868-067
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ,***
District Judge.
Jose Guadalupe Perez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review
of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of
* 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).
*** The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for cancellation of removal based
on “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S.-citizen children and
stepchildren. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We have jurisdiction over Perez-
Gonzalez’s due process claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we review de
novo. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition for review.
1. Even if Perez-Gonzalez could show that the BIA somehow violated his
due process rights by declining to consider his children’s birth certificates, which he
submitted for the first time on appeal, his challenge fails because he cannot show
prejudice. See Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8 F.4th 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2021)
(noting that prejudice is required for reversal based on a due process violation,
“mean[ing] that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the
alleged violation” (quoting Colmenar v. I.N.S., 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000))).
Both the IJ and BIA assumed the children were U.S. citizens and qualifying family
members and denied relief after finding that the hardship they would experience did
not rise to the level of “exceptional and extremely unusual.” Perez-Gonzalez does
not challenge the hardship finding itself, and we would not have jurisdiction to
review the agency’s “subjective, discretionary determination” in any
event. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2. The record does not support Perez-Gonzalez’s argument that the IJ
predetermined the outcome of the proceedings. The IJ conducted a full hearing, and
the decision indicates a thorough review of the evidence and
testimony. Cf. Zolotukhin v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1073, 1075–76 (9th Cir. 2005)
(finding prejudgment existed where IJ stated petitioner’s testimony was
unbelievable and excluded key witness testimony). Neither the IJ’s reliance on
written materials when delivering a long oral decision nor the denial of relief itself
is evidence of predetermination.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --