IGNACIO GUTIERREZ AGUIRRE V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-71291 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IGNACIO ALBERTO GUTIERREZ AGUIRRE, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71291 Agency No. A095-720-233 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Ignacio Alberto Gutierrez Aguirre, 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 cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo * 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). claims of due process violations and questions of law. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Gutierrez Aguirre did not merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. See Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). Gutierrez Aguirre’s contention that the BIA fully adopted the IJ’s decision and thus adopted any alleged errors is not supported by the record, and thus does not invoke our jurisdiction. See ArteagaDeAlvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730, 736 (9th Cir. 2012) (alien must present a colorable claim to invoke jurisdiction over a discretionary determination). In light of this determination, we need not, and the BIA was not required to, address whether the IJ correctly determined that Gutierrez Aguirre was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or properly analyzed good moral character. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538; Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s review is limited to the grounds actually relied upon by the BIA). Accordingly, the BIA did not violate due process in declining to address these contentions. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-71291

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.