FERNANDO RAMIREZ RUIZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-72117 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FERNANDO RAMIREZ RUIZ, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-72117 Agency No. A208-121-608 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Fernando Ramirez Ruiz, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of * 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). law, including claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not err in concluding that Ramirez Ruiz failed to establish the IJ violated his right to due process by exhibiting bias. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding no due process violation where the noncitizen failed to show that “the IJ had a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”). We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Ramirez Ruiz did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives for purposes of cancellation of removal where the petition does not further raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); MartinezRosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Ramirez Ruiz’s reliance on Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020), is misplaced. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of a legal standard to undisputed facts is a legal question under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)); see also Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (Ramadan 2 19-72117 does not apply to the subjective hardship standard). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 19-72117
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.
