Narrative Opinion Summary
In this immigration case, the petitioner, an individual facing removal, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of several forms of relief, including cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court's jurisdiction was invoked under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The court dismissed part of the petition, due to lack of jurisdiction over discretionary decisions related to hardship to a qualifying relative. It was determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, a crucial element for cancellation of removal. The court further denied the petition as the petitioner did not present a valid due process claim, noting that reframing discretionary errors as due process violations does not establish a constitutional claim. Additionally, the petitioner waived any challenge regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief by not addressing these issues in his opening brief. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, with the ruling not set for publication or use as precedent, consistent with 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Due Process Claims in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Recharacterizing abuse of discretion challenges as due process violations does not create a colorable constitutional claim, hence does not provide a basis for appeal.
Reasoning: Additionally, he does not present a valid due process claim, as recharacterizing abuse of discretion challenges as due process violations does not create a colorable constitutional claim.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' decisions, except for discretionary determinations regarding hardship.
Reasoning: Jurisdiction for this review is based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Non-publication and Precedent Status of Rulingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not intended for publication or as precedent, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reasoning: The petition is dismissed in part and denied in part, with the ruling not intended for publication or as precedent, except as noted in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Review of Discretionary Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision relating to the failure to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative.
Reasoning: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision regarding Martinez-Perez's failure to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative.
Waiver of Issues on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Failure to raise issues in the opening brief constitutes a waiver of those issues on appeal, including claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Reasoning: Furthermore, he waives any challenge regarding his ineligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief by failing to raise these issues in his opening brief.