HILARIO RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA, AKA Hilario Rivera, AKA Larry Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HILARIO RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA, AKA
Hilario Rivera, AKA Larry Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70955
Agency No. A207-736-961
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Hilario Rodriguez-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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
FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70955
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Rodriguez-Rivera did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
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); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at
930. Thus, we dismiss the petition for review as to Rodriguez-Rivera’s
cancellation of removal claim.
Rodriguez-Rivera’s contentions that the BIA erred by not addressing the IJ’s
good moral character determination fail. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (courts
are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach); see also
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error is required to prevail on a
due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --