SALVADOR MORALES-JASSO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-70122 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 3 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR MORALES-JASSO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70122 Agency No. A030-224-184 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Salvador Morales-Jasso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and 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 * 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). review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Jasso’s motion to remand to consider voluntary departure where he did not apply for such relief before the IJ and did not allege he was not given an opportunity to do so or that circumstances had changed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing grounds on which a motion to reopen can be denied). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2012). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Morales-Jasso’s unexhausted contention that the IJ failed to inform him of the availability of voluntary departure. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s proceedings before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-70122

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.