Melchor Morales v. Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR MELCHOR MORALES, No. 23-1621 Agency No. Petitioner, A200-569-674 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 3, 2025** Pasadena, California Before: MILLER, LEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Edgar Melchor Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an order of an immigration judge denying his application for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary determination. 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). We dismiss the petition. Because the Board adopted the decision of the immigration judge and cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994), we look to both the Board’s decision and the immigration judge’s decision to determine the reasons the Board denied Melchor Morales’s application. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). The Board denied cancellation of removal on two grounds: Melchor Morales did not “meet the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ requirement that Congress established for cancellation of removal,” and he “did not establish that he warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(4)(A)(ii), 1229b(b)(1)(D). Melchor Morales focuses on the former ground, but the latter was an independently sufficient basis for the denial, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. A “discretionary determination on whether or not to grant cancellation of removal in the particular case is not reviewable as a question of law,” and “questions of fact underlying denials of discretionary relief are unreviewable” too. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 219, 225 n.4 (2024) (emphasis omitted). We therefore lack jurisdiction over this petition. PETITION DISMISSED. 2 23-1621